Are all cementless acetabular components created equal?

The cementless acetabular components used over the past 2 decades have varied in type of ingrowth fixation, supplemental fixation, locking mechanisms, and bearing surface. We evaluated 15-year follow-up results from 2 cementless acetabular components: the Harris-Galante I (HG; Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2004-06, Vol.19 (4), p.95-98
Hauptverfasser: Callaghan, John J, Savory, Carlton G, O’Rourke, Michael R, Johnston, Richard C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The cementless acetabular components used over the past 2 decades have varied in type of ingrowth fixation, supplemental fixation, locking mechanisms, and bearing surface. We evaluated 15-year follow-up results from 2 cementless acetabular components: the Harris-Galante I (HG; Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) and the PCA (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ), in terms of revision and radiographic loosening. Three of the 120 HG I acetabular components were revised for wear and osteolysis without loosening. Seventeen of the 100 PCA components were revised for aseptic loosening (with or without osteolysis). Including those cases revised, 21 PCA acetabular components were loose radiographically, and no HG I component was loose. At least with these 2 first-generation designs, differences were seen in performance of the acetabular component in terms of revision and loosening at 15 years.
ISSN:0883-5403
1532-8406
DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2004.02.017