No medium-term advantage of electrochemical deposition of hydroxyapatite in cementless femoral stems

Background and purpose — Hydroxyapatite has been used for a long time as an adjunct to enhance cementless fixation. The benefit of this is still debated, but new methods of hydroxyapa- tite deposition have emerged, offering possible gains. In order to investigate this further, we compared the migration pattern and periprosthetic bone remodeling in a cementless femoral stem with either electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite—called Bone- master (BM)—or a conventional plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite (HA) coating. Patients and methods — 55 hips were randomized to either BM or HA cementless femoral stems. Patients were followed with radiostereometry (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), radiographic measurements, and hip questionnaires for 5 years. Results — For both stems, migration occurred mainly as sub- sidence and retroversion during the first 3 months. The BM group had a higher retroversion rate of 0.17° per month during this period, as compared to 0.06° per month for the HA group (p = 0.006). Thereafter, there was almost no movement in any direc- tion for both stem types. Bone resorption occurred mainly during the first year, and subsequently decreased to a rate close to what is seen in normal ageing. The greatest total decrease occurred in Gruen zones 1 and 7, similar in the groups at 5 years. There was a slightly higher resorption rate in Gruen zone 7 from 2 to 5 years in the BM group (1.3% per year; p = 0.04), but in a magnitude that would scarcely affect stem stability or survival. Interpretation — There were no clinically relevant differences between the 2 stems regarding stability or periprosthetic bone loss at 5 years. Electrochemically deposited HA does not appear to affect fixation or bone remodeling when compared to conven- tional plasma spraying at 5 years. Thus, at this point, Bonemaster appears to be safe.