title: Effects of hydroxyapatite coating of cups used in hip revision arthroplasty.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Coating of acetabular revision implants with hydroxyapatite (HA) has been proposed to improve ingrowth and stability. We investigated whether HA coating of revision cups can reduce the risk of any subsequent re-revision.
  
  
  METHODS
  We studied uncemented cups either with or without HA coating that were used at a primary acetabular revision and registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). 2 such cup designs were identified: Harris-Galante and Trilogy, both available either with or without HA coating. These cups had been used as revision components in 1,780 revisions of total hip arthroplasties (THA) between 1986 and 2009. A Cox proportional hazards model including the type of coating, age at index revision, sex, cause of cup revision, cup design, the use of bone graft at the revision procedure, and the type of cup fixation at primary THA were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (RRs with 95% CI) for re-revision for any reason or due to aseptic loosening.
  
  
  RESULTS
  71% of the cups were coated with HA and 29% were uncoated. At a mean follow-up time of 6.9 (0-24) years, 159 (9%) of all 1,780 cups had been re-revised, mostly due to aseptic loosening (5%), dislocation (2%), or deep infection (1%). HA coating had no significant influence on the risk of re-revision of the cup for any reason (RR = 1.4, CI: 0.9-2.0) or due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.1, 0.6-1.9). In contrast, HA coating was found to be a risk factor for isolated liner re-revision for any reason (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.01-3.3). Age below 60 years at the index cup revision, dislocation as the cause of the index cup revision, uncemented cup fixation at primary THA, and use of the Harris-Galante cup also increased the risk of re-revision of the cup. In separate analyses in which isolated liner revisions were excluded, bone grafting was found to be a risk factor for re-revision of the metal shell due to aseptic loosening (RR = 2.1, CI: 1.05-4.2).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We found no evidence to support the notion that HA coating improves the performance of the 2 studied cup designs in revision arthroplasty. In contrast, patient-related factors such as younger age and dislocation as the reason for cup revision, and technical factors such as the choice of revision cup were found to influence the risk of subsequent re-revision of the cup. The reason for inferior results after revision of uncemented cups is not known, but it is possible that these hips more often had pronounced bone loss at the index cup revision.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. lazarinis.stergios@surgsci.uu.se
authors.forename: Stergios
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lazarinis
authors.forename: Johan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kärrholm
authors.forename: Nils P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Hailer
mesh_terms: D000077:Acetabulum / Q000601:surgery*; D000368:Aged; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D017886:Durapatite; D005260:Female; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012042:Registries; D012086:Reoperation; D012307:Risk Factors
chemical_list: D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D017886:Durapatite