Cargando…

Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years

Background and purpose One of the greatest problems of revision hip arthroplasty is dealing with lost bone stock. Good results have been obtained with impaction grafting of allograft bone. However, there have been problems of infection, reproducibility, antigenicity, stability, availability of bone,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blom, Ashley W, Wylde, Vikki, Livesey, Christine, Whitehouse, Michael R, Eastaugh-Waring, Steve, Bannister, Gordon C, Learmonth, Ian D
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19404794
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902884767
_version_ 1782177609845571584
author Blom, Ashley W
Wylde, Vikki
Livesey, Christine
Whitehouse, Michael R
Eastaugh-Waring, Steve
Bannister, Gordon C
Learmonth, Ian D
author_facet Blom, Ashley W
Wylde, Vikki
Livesey, Christine
Whitehouse, Michael R
Eastaugh-Waring, Steve
Bannister, Gordon C
Learmonth, Ian D
author_sort Blom, Ashley W
collection PubMed
description Background and purpose One of the greatest problems of revision hip arthroplasty is dealing with lost bone stock. Good results have been obtained with impaction grafting of allograft bone. However, there have been problems of infection, reproducibility, antigenicity, stability, availability of bone, and cost. Thus, alternatives to allograft have been sought. BoneSave is a biphasic porous ceramic specifically designed for use in impaction grafting. BoneSave is 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite. Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have yielded good results using mixtures of allograft and BoneSave, when compared with allograft alone. This study is the first reported human clinical trial of BoneSave in impaction grafting. Methods We performed a single-institution, multi-surgeon, prospective cohort study. 43 consecutive patients underwent revision hip arthroplasty using BoneSave and allograft to restore missing bone in the acetabulum. 9 patients had cemented acetabular components implanted and 34 uncemented. 10 patients had cemented femoral components implanted and 1 had an uncemented femoral component. 32 patients did not have their femoral component revised. Results No patients were lost to follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 (11–48) months, there were no re-revisions and there was no implant migration. 1 acetabular component had confluent lucent lines at the implant-graft interface. Complications were rare (1 fracture, 2 dislocations). Patient satisfaction with the procedure was high. Interpretation Short-term results indicate that impaction grafting of BoneSave and allograft is an effective method of dealing with loss of bone stock at revision hip surgery.
format Text
id pubmed-2823174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28231742010-02-18 Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years Blom, Ashley W Wylde, Vikki Livesey, Christine Whitehouse, Michael R Eastaugh-Waring, Steve Bannister, Gordon C Learmonth, Ian D Acta Orthop Research Article Background and purpose One of the greatest problems of revision hip arthroplasty is dealing with lost bone stock. Good results have been obtained with impaction grafting of allograft bone. However, there have been problems of infection, reproducibility, antigenicity, stability, availability of bone, and cost. Thus, alternatives to allograft have been sought. BoneSave is a biphasic porous ceramic specifically designed for use in impaction grafting. BoneSave is 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite. Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have yielded good results using mixtures of allograft and BoneSave, when compared with allograft alone. This study is the first reported human clinical trial of BoneSave in impaction grafting. Methods We performed a single-institution, multi-surgeon, prospective cohort study. 43 consecutive patients underwent revision hip arthroplasty using BoneSave and allograft to restore missing bone in the acetabulum. 9 patients had cemented acetabular components implanted and 34 uncemented. 10 patients had cemented femoral components implanted and 1 had an uncemented femoral component. 32 patients did not have their femoral component revised. Results No patients were lost to follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 (11–48) months, there were no re-revisions and there was no implant migration. 1 acetabular component had confluent lucent lines at the implant-graft interface. Complications were rare (1 fracture, 2 dislocations). Patient satisfaction with the procedure was high. Interpretation Short-term results indicate that impaction grafting of BoneSave and allograft is an effective method of dealing with loss of bone stock at revision hip surgery. Informa Healthcare 2009-04-29 2009-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2823174/ /pubmed/19404794 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902884767 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Blom, Ashley W
Wylde, Vikki
Livesey, Christine
Whitehouse, Michael R
Eastaugh-Waring, Steve
Bannister, Gordon C
Learmonth, Ian D
Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title_full Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title_fullStr Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title_full_unstemmed Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title_short Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: Good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
title_sort impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute: good outcome in 43 patients followed for a mean of 2 years
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19404794
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902884767
work_keys_str_mv AT blomashleyw impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT wyldevikki impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT liveseychristine impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT whitehousemichaelr impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT eastaughwaringsteve impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT bannistergordonc impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years
AT learmonthiand impactionbonegraftingoftheacetabulumathiprevisionusingamixofbonechipsandabiphasicporousceramicbonegraftsubstitutegoodoutcomein43patientsfollowedforameanof2years