International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 1535–1544 | Cite as

Real-time computerised tomography assisted porous tantalum implant in ARCO stage I-II non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: minimum five-year follow up

  • Ruyin Hu
  • Pengfei Lei
  • Bo Li
  • Hao Liu
  • Xucheng Yang
  • Ting Wen
  • Yihe Hu
  • Xiaobin Tian
Original Paper



This study was established to investigate the medium-term clinical effect of real-time CT assisted porous tantalum implant for the treatment of ARCO stage I-II non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH).


This study comprised 24 ONFH patients (29 hips) who were treated with intra-operative real-time CT accurate rapid positioning assisted drilling decompression, lesion removal and porous tantalum implant. Harris score, VAS score and imaging in pre-operation and follow-up period were recorded.


The average operative time and intra-operative blood loss were 72.6 min and 158.8 ml, respectively. The mean follow-up was 5.4 years. No femoral head penetrating, wound infection, and death occurred. Harris and VAS score improved significantly (73.78 vs. 88.11; 7.13 vs. 2.66) at last follow-up (P < 0.05). The functional improvement and pain relief rate was 100% at six months after operation. The effective rate was 86.21% at 12 months after operation and last follow-up. Five pre-operative ARCO stage I hips had no radiographic progress. Meanwhile, four among the 24 ARCO stage II hips progressed into stage III between eight and 12 months after surgery, among which two progressed into stage IV and two remained in stage III at the last follow-up. The average value of Kerboul combined necrotic angle was 263.24°. There was no progress in Kerboul combined necrotic angle among the grades 2 and 3 patients. However, among the six cases at grade 4, four cases with post-operative progress, two patients converted to THA.


Our technique is safety and effective in the treatment of ARCO stage I-II non-traumatic ONFH.


Real-time CT accurate positioning Porous tantalum implant Osteonecrosis of the femoral head 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical review committee statement

This study was approved by the ethic committee of Xiangya Hospital Central South University and followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent were received from all patients.


  1. 1.
    Feng Y, Yang SH, Xiao BJ, Xu WH, Ye SN, Xia T, Zheng D, Liu XZ, Liao YF (2010) Decreased in the number and function of circulation endothelial progenitor cells in patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Bone 46(1):32–40. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kamiya N, Yamaguchi R, Aruwajoye O, Adapala NS, Kim HK (2015) Development of a mouse model of ischemic osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1486–1498. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Issa K, Pivec R, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Mont MA (2013) Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: the total hip replacement solution. Bone Joint J 95-B(11 Suppl A):46–50. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hang D, Wang Q, Guo C, Chen Z, Yan Z (2012) Treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head with VEGF165 transgenic bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in mongrel dogs. Cells Tissues Organs 195(6):495–506. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mankin HJ (1992) Nontraumatic necrosis of bone (osteonecrosis). N Engl J Med 326(22):1473–1479. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ajmal M, Matas AJ, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY (2009) Does statin usage reduce the risk of corticosteroid-related osteonecrosis in renal transplant population? Orthop Clin N Am 40(2):235–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro FP Jr, Barrack RL (2000) Core decompression and conservative treatment for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthop 29(3):187–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (1999) Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 81(5):907–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, Unger AS, O'Keefe TJ, Christie MJ, Nasser S, Wood JE, Stulberg SD, Tanzer M (2004) Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veillette CJ, Mehdian H, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD (2006) Survivorship analysis and radiographic outcome following tantalum rod insertion for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 3):48–55. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lieberman JR, Berry DJ, Mont MA, Aaron RK, Callaghan JJ, Rajadhyaksha AD, Urbaniak JR (2003) Osteonecrosis of the hip: management in the 21st century. Instr Course Lect 52:337–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varitimidis SE, Dimitroulias AP, Karachalios TS, Dailiana ZH, Malizos KN (2009) Outcome after tantalum rod implantation for treatment of femoral head osteonecrosis: 26 hips followed for an average of 3 years. Acta Orthop 80(1):20–25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aldegheri R, Taglialavoro G, Berizzi A (2007) The tantalum screw for treating femoral head necrosis: rationale and results. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstruction 2(2–3):63–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu B, Sun W, Yue D, Li Z, Guo W (2013) Combined tantalum implant with bone grafting for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Investig Surg : Off J Acad Surg Res 26(3):158–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shuler MS, Rooks MD, Roberson JR (2007) Porous tantalum implant in early osteonecrosis of the hip: preliminary report on operative, survival, and outcomes results. J Arthroplast 22(1):26–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang X, Wang J, Xiao J, Shi Z (2016) Early failures of porous tantalum osteonecrosis implants: a case series with retrieval analysis. Int Orthop 40(9):1827–1834. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma J, Sun W, Gao F, Guo W, Wang Y, Li Z (2016) Porous tantalum implant in treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head: still a viable option? Sci Rep 6:28227. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hur J, Lee HJ, Nam JE, Kim YJ, Kim TH, Choe KO, Choi BW (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of CT fluoroscopy-guided needle aspiration biopsy of ground-glass opacity pulmonary lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(3):629–634. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallace MJ, Krishnamurthy S, Broemeling LD, Gupta S, Ahrar K, Morello FA Jr, Hicks ME (2002) CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of small (< or =1-cm) pulmonary lesions. Radiology 225(3):823–828. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ha YC, Jung WH, Kim JR, Seong NH, Kim SY, Koo KH (2006) Prediction of collapse in femoral head osteonecrosis: a modified Kerboul method with use of magnetic resonance images. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 3):35–40. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sakagoshi D, Kabata T, Umemoto Y, Sakamoto J, Tomita K (2010) A mechanical analysis of femoral resurfacing implantation for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Arthroplast 25(8):1282–1289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Q, Zhang H, Li Q, Ye L, Gan H, Liu Y, Wang H, Wang Z (2015) Biocompatibility and osteogenic properties of porous tantalum. Exp Ther Med 9(3):780–786. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Floerkemeier T, Thorey F, Daentzer D, Lerch M, Klages P, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G (2011) Clinical and radiological outcome of the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head using the osteonecrosis intervention implant. Int Orthop 35(4):489–495. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Su X, Zhou S, Wang L, Wang C, Liu S (2015) A modified porous tantalum implant technique for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: survivorship analysis and prognostic factors for radiographic progression and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(2):1918–1930PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oh KJ, Pandher DS (2010) A new mode of clinical failure of porous tantalum rod. Indian J Orthop 44(4):464–467. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Floerkemeier T, Lutz A, Nackenhorst U, Thorey F, Waizy H, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G (2011) Core decompression and osteonecrosis intervention rod in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: clinical outcome and finite element analysis. Int Orthop 35(10):1461–1466. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu WG, Wang SJ, Yin QF, Liu SH, Guan YJ (2012) Biomechanical supporting effect of tantalum rods for the femoral head with various sized lesions: a finite-element analysis. Chin Med J 125(22):4061–4065PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fernandez-Fairen M, Murcia A, Iglesias R, Sevilla P, Manero JM, Gil FJ (2012) Analysis of tantalum implants used for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a review of five retrieved specimens. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 10(1):29–36. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ (2006) Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 27(27):4671–4681. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopeadicsPeople’s Hospital of Guizhou ProvinceGuiyangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of OrthopeadicsXiangya Hospital Central South UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations