Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial componentsA RANDOMISED RSA STUDY IN 116 PATIENTSI. Önsten, MD, PhD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; A. Nordqvist, MD, PhD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; Å. S. Carlsson, MD, PhD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; J. Besjakov, MD, PhD, Radiologist1; and S. Shott, PhD, Biostatistician2
1 Malmö University Hospital, S-20502 Malmö, Sweden. Correspondence should be sent to Dr I. Önsten at the Department of Anatomy, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA. In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component. At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants. We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
