Osteointegration of Hydroxyapatite-coated Collars in Cemented Massive Endoprostheses Following Revision Surgery

Overview

Journal Bone Jt Open

Date 2021 Jun 17

PMID 34134510

Citations 2

Authors

Benjamin Davies

Rajiv Kaila

Loukas Andritsos

Christian Gray Stephens

Gordon W Blunn

Craig Gerrand

Panagiotis Gikas

Andrew Johnston

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated collars have been shown to reduce aseptic loosening of massive endoprostheses following primary surgery. Limited information exists about their effectiveness in revision surgery. The aim of this study was to radiologically assess osteointegration to HA-coated collars of cemented massive endoprostheses following revision surgery.

Methods: Retrospective review of osseointegration frequency, pattern, and timing to a specific HA-coated collar on massive endoprostheses used in revision surgery at our tertiary referral centre between 2010 to 2017 was undertaken. Osseointegration was radiologically classified on cases with a minimum follow-up of six months.

Results: In all, 39 patients underwent radiological review at mean 43.5 months; 22/39 (56.4%) showed no osseointegration to the collar. Revision endoprostheses for aseptic loosening were less likely to show osseointegration compared with other indications for revision. Oncological cases with previous or current infection were more likely to show osseointegration to ≥ 1 collar side than those without evidence of prior infection.

Conclusion: This seven-year review identified osseointegration of HA-coated collars after revision surgery is less likely (43.6%, 17/39) than after primary surgery. Young patients who undergo revision surgery following initial oncological indication may benefit the most from this collar design. Use in revision oncological cases with a history of infection may be beneficial. HA-coated collars showed limited benefit for patients undergoing revision for failed arthroplasty with history of infection. Cite this article: 2021;2(6):371-379.

Citing Articles

A case of aseptic loosening after total knee replacement with porous-coated mega prosthesis despite progression of extra bone growth.

Miyamoto R, Goto Y, Fujito T, Abe H, Kunugiza Y Radiol Case Rep. 2025; 20(4):1900-1903.

PMID: 39897751 PMC: 11786797. DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2025.01.019.

A 3D-printed load sharing implant achieved union of a 9-cm femoral segmental bone defect within three months using a hybrid Masquelet induction membrane technique. A case-report.

Foukas A, Hadjimichael A, Nicolaou C, Savvidou O, Papagelopoulos P Trauma Case Rep. 2024; 49:100978.

PMID: 38312114 PMC: 10835288. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcr.2024.100978.

Early radiographic osseointegration of a novel highly porous 3D-printed titanium collar for megaprostheses compared to a previous generation smooth HA-coated collar.

Haider T, Pagkalos I, Morris G, Parry M, Jeys L Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 143(8):4671-4677.

PMID: 36598605 PMC: 10374805. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04760-3.

References

Ward W, JOHNSTON K, Dorey F, Eckardt J . Loosening of massive proximal femoral cemented endoprostheses. Radiographic evidence of loosening mechanism. J Arthroplasty. 1997; 12(7):741-50. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(97)90003-6. View

Corona P, Vicente M, Lalanza M, Amat C, Carrera L . Use of modular megaprosthesis in managing chronic end-stage periprosthetic hip and knee infections: Is there an increase in relapse rate?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018; 28(4):627-636. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-018-2127-9. View

Coathup M, Batta V, Pollock R, Aston W, Cannon S, Skinner J . Long-term survival of cemented distal femoral endoprostheses with a hydroxyapatite-coated collar: a histological study and a radiographic follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(17):1569-75. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00362. View

Blunn G, Briggs T, Cannon S, Walker P, Unwin P, Culligan S . Cementless fixation for primary segmental bone tumor endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; (372):223-30. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200003000-00024. View

Coathup M, Kalia P, Konan S, Mirza K, Blunn G . A comparison of allogeneic and autologous mesenchymal stromal cells and osteoprogenitor cells in augmenting bone formation around massive bone tumor prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013; 101(8):2210-8. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34536. View

Mumith A, Coathup M, Chimutengwende-Gordon M, Aston W, Briggs T, Blunn G . Augmenting the osseointegration of endoprostheses using laser-sintered porous collars: an in vivo study. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(2):276-282. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0584.R1. View

Myers G, Abudu A, Carter S, Tillman R, Grimer R . Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(4):521-6. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18631. View

Kalia P, Blunn G, Miller J, Bhalla A, Wiseman M, Coathup M . Do autologous mesenchymal stem cells augment bone growth and contact to massive bone tumor implants?. Tissue Eng. 2006; 12(6):1617-26. DOI: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.1617. View

Saran N, Zhang R, Turcotte R . Osteogenic protein-1 delivered by hydroxyapatite-coated implants improves bone ingrowth in extracortical bone bridging. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 469(5):1470-8. PMC: 3069257. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1573-4. View

10.

Schwartz A, Kabo J, Eilber F, Eilber F, Eckardt J . Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(8):2198-210. PMC: 2895832. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1197-8. View

11.

Elalfy M, Boland P, Healey J . Chemotherapy Curtails Bone Formation From Compliant Compression Fixation of Distal Femoral Endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 477(1):206-216. PMC: 6345286. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000512. View

12.

Tanzer M, Turcotte R, Harvey E, Bobyn J . Extracortical bone bridging in tumor endoprostheses. Radiographic and histologic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(12):2365-70. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200312000-00014. View

13.

Griffin A, Parsons J, Davis A, Bell R, Wunder J . Uncemented tumor endoprostheses at the knee: root causes of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 438:71-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000180050.27961.8a. View

14.

Jeys L, Kulkarni A, Grimer R, Carter S, Tillman R, Abudu A . Endoprosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the appendicular skeleton and pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(6):1265-71. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01324. View

15.

Taylor S, Perry J, Meswania J, Donaldson N, Walker P, Cannon S . Telemetry of forces from proximal femoral replacements and relevance to fixation. J Biomech. 1997; 30(3):225-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(96)00141-8. View

16.

Farfalli G, Boland P, Morris C, Athanasian E, Healey J . Early equivalence of uncemented press-fit and Compress femoral fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(11):2792-9. PMC: 2758982. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-0912-9. View

17.

Fromme P, Blunn G, Aston W, Abdoola T, Koris J, Coathup M . The effect of bone growth onto massive prostheses collars in protecting the implant from fracture. Med Eng Phys. 2017; 41:19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.12.007. View

18.

Kay R, Kabo J, Seeger L, Eckardt J . Hydroxyapatite-coated distal femoral replacements. Preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (302):92-100. View

19.

Sim F, Chao E . Prosthetic replacement of the knee and a large segment of the femur or tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979; 61(6A):887-92. View

20.

Torbert J, Fox E, Hosalkar H, Ogilvie C, Lackman R . Endoprosthetic reconstructions: results of long-term followup of 139 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 438:51-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000179735.37089.c2. View