Clinical Experience with the Hedrocel® Acetabular Cup

  • C. Perka
  • G. Möckel
  • K. Labs
  • G. Matziolis
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


Cementless anchoring of orthopedic implants requires specific physical characteristics of the implant surface. While the primary implant stability is defined by the surface friction, the definite implant stability depends on the biological integration, which is correlated to the porosity of the implant. Different coating materials and techniques have been developed to improve both parameters, friction and porosity, e.g. sintered balls, fibre metals, plasma spray coatings and titanium blasting. Nevertheless, the achievable porosity and thickness of coatings have shown to underlie fundamental limitations.


Acetabular Fracture Radiolucent Line Revision THAs Pelvic Rotation Trabecular Metal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference List

  1. 1.
    Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (1999) Characteristics ot bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J.Bone Joint Surg.Br. 81:907–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bobyn JD, Toh KK, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (1999) Tissue response to porous tantalum acetabular cups: a canine model. J.Arthroplasty 14:347–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH, Jr. (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 55:1629–1632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charnley J, Feagin JA (1973) Low-friction arthroplasty in congenital subluxation of the hip. Clin Orthop 91:-1977Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christie MJ (2002) Clinical applications of Trabecular Metal. Am.J.Orthop. 31:219–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen R (2002) A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am.J.Orthop. 31:216–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collis DK (1982) Long-term radiographic follow-up of total hip replacements. Hip. 1–26Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 61:15–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop20–32Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fruhwirth J, Koch G, Ivanic GM, Seibert FJ, Tesch NP (1997) [Vascular lesions in surgery of the hip joint]. Unfallchirurg 100:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green DL, Bahniuk E, Liebelt RA, Fender E, Mirkov P (1983) Biplane radiographic measurements of reversible displacement (including clinical loosening) and migration of total joint replacements. J.Bone Joint Surg.Am. 65:1134–1143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthopl7–27Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hacking SA, Bobyn JD, Toh K, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (2000) Fibrous tissue ingrowth and attachment to porous tantalum. J.Biomed.Mater.Res. 52:631–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 51:737–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirkpatrick JS, Callaghan JJ, Vandemark RM, Goldner RD (1990) The relationship of the intrapelvic vasculature to the acetabulum. Implications in screw-fixation acetabular components. Clin.Orthop. 183–190Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krushell RJ, Burke DW, Harris WH (1991) Range of motion in contemporary total hip arthroplasty. The impact of modular head-neck components. J.Arthroplasty 6:97–101Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merled’ Aubigné R, Postel M (1954) Functional results of arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 36A:451–455Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morscher EW (1992) Current status of acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin.Orthop.172–193Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nunn D, Freeman MA, Hill PF, Evans SJ (1989) The measurement of migration of the acetabular component of hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 71:629–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Puolakka TJ, Laine HJ, Moilanen TP, Koivisto AM, Pajamaki KJ (2001) Alarming wear of the first-generation polyethylene liner of the cementless porous-coated Biomet Universal cup: 107 hips followed for mean 6 years. Acta Orthop.Scand. 72:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wetherell RG, Amis AA, Heatley FW (1989) Measurement of acetabular erosion. The effect of pelvic rotation on common landmarks. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 71:447–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wetherell RG, Amis AA, Heatley FW (1989) Measurement of acetabular erosion. The effect of pelvic rotation on common landmarks. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 71:447–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams VG, Whiteside LA, White SE, McCarthy DS (1997) Fixation of ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene liners to metal-backed acetabular cups. J.Arthroplasty 12:25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zardiackas LD, Parsell DE, Dillon LD, Mitchell DW, Nunnery LA, Poggie R (2001) Structure, metallurgy, and mechanical properties of a porous tantalum foam. J.Biomed.Mater.Res. 58:180–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Perka
  • G. Möckel
  • K. Labs
  • G. Matziolis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations