A monoblock porous tantalum acetabular cup has no osteolysis on CT at 10 years.
BACKGROUND
Aseptic osteolysis has been the single most important factor limiting the longevity of a THA. A great deal of attention has been focused on the development of implants and materials that minimize the development of osteolysis. The monoblock porous tantalum acetabular cup was designed to minimize osteolysis, but whether it does so is unclear.


OBJECTIVE
We evaluated the incidence of osteolytic lesions after THA using a monoblock porous tantalum acetabular component.


METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who had a THA using a monoblock porous tantalum acetabular cup. At a minimum of 9.6 years postoperatively (average, 10.3 years; SD, 0.2 years; range, 9.6-10.8 years), a helical CT scan of the pelvis using a metal suppression protocol was obtained. This scan was evaluated for the presence of osteolysis.


RESULTS
We found no evidence of osteolysis on CT scan at an average of 10.3 years.


CONCLUSIONS
Osteolysis appears not to be a major problem at 10 years with this monoblock porous tantalum acetabular component, but longer term followup will be required to determine whether these findings persist.


METHODS
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Moen
Todd C
TC
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N St Clair, Suite 1350, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. tmoen005@md.northwestern.edu
Ghate
Raju
R
Salaz
Noel
N
Ghodasra
Jason
J
Stulberg
S David
SD
D000077:Acetabulum; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010014:Osteolysis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000209:etiology*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013635:Tantalum; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods
D013635:Tantalum
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jun 1;23(11):1245-50; discussion 1251
9636978
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 2:123-9
15691117
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4 Suppl 1):118-20
12068420
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1542-50
15995122
J Arthroplasty. 1993 Jun;8(3):315-22
8326314
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun;21(4):476-83
16781397
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Sep;15(6):796-801
11021458
J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(2):180-7
11241337
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Feb;22(2):204-9
17275634
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 May;87(5):623-7
15855361
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Apr;84(4):609-14
11940623
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995 Feb;(311):46-53
7634590
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep;22(6 Suppl 2):130-3
17823031
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998 May-Jun;22(3):444-9
9606388
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):188-92
15577486
Orthopedics. 1998 Sep;21(9):973-4
9769038
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Apr;20(3):369-78
15809957
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:76-8
16505710
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91(5):1130-5
19411461
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Aug;89(8):1818-25
17671023
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar;(420):10-7
15057073
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:291-7
16331017
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Aug;24(5):705-9
18703310
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Apr;31(4):219-20
12008854
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Mar;87(3):592-7
15741627
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Apr;14(3):347-54
10220190
Orthopedics. 2005 Jul;28(7):662-70
16119281
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Sep;17(6):752-9
12216030
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 May;(422):167-74
15187852
Int Orthop. 2009 Aug;33(4):911-6
18509638
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A Suppl 2:116-22
12479349
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 1;23(15):1684-8
9704376
Acta Orthop Belg. 2006 Jun;72(3):326-31
16889145
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619-26
8245054
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep;21(6 Suppl 2):78-82
16950066
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Aug;25(5):741-7
19473807
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Aug;(437):138-44
16056041
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Mar;88(3):304-9
16498001