Top

Published in:

2015 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

10. The Use of Porous Tantalum for Reconstructing Bone Loss in Orthopedic Surgery

Authors : Nilesh Patil, MD, Stuart B. Goodman, MD

Published in: Advances in Metallic Biomaterials

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Porous tantalum, a novel biomaterial, was approved for use in orthopedic surgery by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997. Several preclinical and experimental studies have demonstrated excellent biocompatibility with physical, mechanical, and tissue ingrowth properties conducive for enhanced osseointegration and superior structural integrity. Porous tantalum has high volumetric porosity (75–80 %). The modulus of elasticity of tantalum (3 Gpa) compares favorably to cancellous bone (1.2 GPa) or subchondral bone (2 GPa). Porous tantalum also has a high coefficient of friction with a high resistance to compression (50–80 Mpa) and rotational deformity (40–60 Mpa). Tantalum has been used in a wide array of clinical applications in orthopedics including primary and revision joint replacement, tumor reconstructive surgery, spine fusion, management of osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and foot and ankle surgery. Recent studies have demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes, even in the presence of extensive bone loss in hip and knee reconstructive surgeries. Its use in spine surgeries and osteonecrosis of the hip has been associated with mixed clinical results. Further clinical studies are necessary to establish its role and refine its indications in specific orthopedic applications and determine whether the theoretical advantages of porous tantalum can provide long-term biological fixation and stability. This chapter presents a synopsis of the biomaterial properties and preclinical and clinical studies of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Zirconium Alloys for Orthopedic Applications

next chapter Niobium Biomaterials

Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Miller JE (1996) Fundamental principles of biologic fixation. In: Morrey BF (ed) Reconstructive surgery of the joints. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 75–94

Galante J, Rostoker W, Lueck R, Ray RD (1971) Sintered fiber metal composites as a basis for attachment of implants to bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53A:101–114

Pilliar RM, Cameron HU, Macnab I (1975) Porous surface layered prosthetic devices. J Biomed Eng 10:126–131

Pilliar RM (1983) Powder metal-made orthopaedic implants with porous surface for fixation by tissue ingrowth. Clin Orthop 176:42–51

Stein T, Armand C, Bobyn JD, Krygier JJ, Miller J, Brooks CE (1991) Quantitative histological comparison of bone growth into titanium and cobalt-chromium porous coated canine implants. Orthop Trans 15:178

Cohen R (2003) A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am J Orthop 31:216–217

Black J (1994) Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mater 16:167–173CrossRef

Kato H, Nakamura T, Nishiguchi S, Matsusue Y, Kobayashi M, Miyazaki T et al (2000) Bonding of alkali- and heat-treated tantalum implants to bone. J Biomed Mater Res 53:28–35CrossRef

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 58:180–187CrossRef

10.

Matsuno H, Yokoyama A, Watari F, Motohiro U, Kawasaki T (2001) Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of refractory metal implants, titanium, hafnium, niobium, tantalum and rhenium. Biomaterials 22:1253–1262CrossRef

11.

Zhang Y, Ahn PB, Fitzpatrick DC, Heiner AD, Poggie RA, Brown TD (1999) Interfacial frictional behavior: cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum biomaterial. J Musculoskelet Res 3:245–251CrossRef

12.

Bobyn JD, Toh KK, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (1999) Tissue response to porous tantalum acetabular cups: a canine model. J Arthroplasty 14:347–354CrossRef

13.

Bermudez MD, Carrion FJ, Martinez-Nicolas G, Lopez R (2005) Erosion–corrosion of stainless steels, titanium, tantalum and zirconium. Wear 258:693–700CrossRef

14.

Barrere F, van der Valk CM, Meijer G, Dalmeijer RA, deGroot K, Layrolle P (2003) Osteointegration of biomimetic apatite coating applied onto dense and porous metal implants in femurs of goats. J Biomed Mater Res B 67:655–665CrossRef

15.

Paganias CG, Tsakotos GA, Koutsostathis SD, Macheras GA (2012) Osseous integration in porous tantalum implants. Indian J Orthop 46(5):505–513CrossRef

16.

Findlay DM, Welldon K, Atkins GJ, Howie DW, Zannettino AC, Bobyn D (2004) The proliferation and phenotypic expression of human osteoblasts on tantalum metal. Biomaterials 25:2215–2227CrossRef

17.

Balla VK, Bodhak S, Bose S, Bandyopadhyay A (2010) Porous tantalum structures for bone implants: fabrication, mechanical and in vitro biological properties. Acta Biomater 6(8):3349–3359CrossRef

18.

Sagomonyants KB, Hakim-Zargar M, Jhaveri A, Aronow MS, Gronowicz G (2011) Porous tantalum stimulates the proliferation and osteogenesis of osteoblasts from elderly female patients. J Orthop Res 29(4):609–616CrossRef

19.

Hacking SA, Bobyn JD, Toh K, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ (2000) Fibrous tissue ingrowth and attachment to porous tantalum. J Biomed Mater Res 52:631–638CrossRef

20.

Rahbek O, Kold S, Zippor B, Overgaard S, Soballe K (2005) Particle migration and gap healing around trabecular metal implants. Int Orthop 29(6):368–374CrossRef

21.

Reach JS Jr, Dickey ID, Zobitz ME (2007) Direct tendon attachment and healing to porous tantalum: an experimental animal study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1000–1009CrossRef

22.

Pidhorz LE, Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Sumner DR, Galante JO (1993) A quantitative study of bone and soft tissues in cementless porous-coated acetabular components retrieved at autopsy. J Arthroplasty 8(2):213–225CrossRef

23.

Jasty M, Bragdon CR, Haire T Jr, Mulroy RD, Harris WH (1993) Comparison of bone ingrowth into cobalt chrome and titanium fiber mesh porous coated cementless canine acetabular components. J Biomed Mater Res 27:639–644CrossRef

24.

Garbuz DS, Hu Y, Kim WY (2008) Enhanced gap filling and osteoconduction associated with alendronate-calcium phosphate-coated porous tantalum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(5):1090–1100CrossRef

25.

D’Angelo F, Murena L, Campagnolo M, Zatti G, Cherubino P (2008) Analysis of bone ingrowth on a tantalum cup. Indian J Orthop 42(3):275–278CrossRef

26.

Hanzlik JA, Day JS, Acknowledged Contributors: Ingrowth Retrieval Study Group (2003) Bone ingrowth in well-fixed retrieved porous tantalum implants. J Arthroplasty 28(6):922–927CrossRef

27.

Sambaziotis C, Lovy AJ, Koller KE et al (2012) Histologic retrieval analysis of a porous tantalum metal implant in an infected primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(7):1413.e5–1413.e9

28.

Gruen TA, Poggie RA, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, O’Keefe TJ et al (2005) Radiographic evaluation of a monoblock acetabular component: a multicenter study with 2- to 5-year results. J Arthroplasty 20:369–378; Tanzer M, Bobyn JD, Krygier JJ, Karabasz D (2008) Histopathologic retrieval analysis of clinically failed porous tantalum osteonecrosis implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(6):1282–1289

29.

Breer S, Hahn M, Kendoff D et al (2012) Histological ex vivo analysis of retrieved human tantalum augmentations. Int Orthop 36(11):2269–2274; Komarasamy B, Vadivelu R, Bruce A, Kershaw C, Davison J (2006) Clinical and radiological outcome following total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented trabecular metal monoblock acetabular cup. Acta Orthop Belg 72:320–325

30.

Bargiotas K, Konstantinos M, Karachalios T, Hantes M, Varitimidis SE (2005) Total hip arthroplasty using trabecular metal acetabular component: middle term results. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DC, February 23–26, 2005

31.

Macheras GA, Papagelopoulos PJ, Kateros K, Kostakos AT, Baltas D, Karachalios TS (2006) Radiological evaluation of the metal-bone interface of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 88:304–309CrossRef

32.

Mulier M, Rys B, Moke L (2006) Hedrocel trabecular metal monoblock acetabular cups: mid-term results. Acta Orthop Belg 72:326–331

33.

Lewis RJ, O’Keefe TJ, Unger AS (2003) A monoblock trabecular metal acetabulum; two- to five-year results. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Dallas, TX, February 5–8, 2003

34.

Moen TC, Ghate R, Salaz N, Ghodasra J, Stulberg SD (2011) A monoblock porous tantalum acetabular cup has no osteolysis on CT at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):382–386CrossRef

35.

Meneghini RM, Ford KS, McCollough CH, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2010) Bone remodeling around porous metal cementless acetabular components. J Arthroplasty 25(5):741–747CrossRef

36.

Noiseux NO, Long WJ, Mabry TM, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2013) Uncemented porous tantalum acetabular components: early follow-up and failures in 613 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 29(3):617–620CrossRef

37.

Macheras GA, Kateros K, Koutsostathis SD et al (2010) The Trabecular Metal monoblock acetabular component in patients with high congenital hip dislocation: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92(5):624–628CrossRef

38.

Rose PS, Halasy M, Trousdale RT (2006) Preliminary results of tantalum acetabular components for THA after pelvic radiation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:195–198CrossRef

39.

Goodman S, Sastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A (2004) Complications of ilio-ischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:436–446CrossRef

40.

Joshi AB, Lee J, Christensen C (2002) Results for a custom acetabular component for acetabular deficiency. J Arthroplasty 17:643–648CrossRef

41.

Shinar AA, Harris WH (1997) Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:159–168

42.

Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:193–200CrossRef

43.

Garbuz DS (2004) Revision total hip: a novel modular cementless acetabular system for reconstruction of severe acetabular bone loss. Oper Tech Orthop 14:117–120CrossRef

44.

Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T (2005) Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty 20:1002–1009CrossRef

45.

Mardones RM, Talac R, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2005) Use of a porous tantalum revision shell in revision total hip arthroplasty. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DC, February 23–26, 2005

46.

Paprosky WG, O’Rourke M, Sporer SM (2005) The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:216–220CrossRef

47.

Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2012) Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):395–401CrossRef

48.

Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 429:201–208CrossRef

49.

Boscaines PJ, Kellet CF, Maury AC et al (2007) Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:159–165

50.

Malkani AL, Price MR, Crawford CH 3rd, Baker DL (2009) Acetabular component revision using a porous tantalum biomaterial: a case series. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1068–1073CrossRef

51.

Davies JH, Laflamme GY, Delisle J, Fernandes J (2011) Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1245–1250CrossRef

52.

Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2010) Tantalum components in difficult acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):454–458CrossRef

53.

Sporer SM, Bottros JJ, Hulst JB, Kancherla VK, Moric M, Paprosky WG (2012) Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3156–3163CrossRef

54.

Springer BD, Berry DJ, Cabanela ME, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2005) Early postoperative transverse pelvic fracture: a new complication related to revision arthroplasty with an uncemented cup. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(12):2626–2631CrossRef

55.

Kamath AF, Lee GC, Sheth NP et al (2011) Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1390–1395CrossRef

56.

O’Keefe TJ, Winter S, Lewallen DG, Robertson DD, Poggie RA (2010) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a monoblock tibial component. J Arthroplasty 25(5):785–792CrossRef

57.

Fernandez-Fairen M, Hernández-Vaquero D, Murcia A, Torres A, Llopis R (2013) Trabecular metal in total knee arthroplasty associated with higher knee scores: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(11):3543–3553CrossRef

58.

Hayakawa K, Date H, Tsujimura S, Nojiri S, Yamada H, Nakagawa K (2013) Mid-term results of total knee arthroplasty with a porous tantalum monoblock tibial component. Knee 21(1):199–203CrossRef

59.

Niemeläinen M, Skyttä ET, Remes V, Mäkelä K, Eskelinen A (2013) Total knee arthroplasty with an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component: a registry-based analysis. J Arthroplasty 29(1):57–60CrossRef

60.

Unger AS, Duggan JP (2011) Midterm results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component clinical and radiographic results of 108 knees. J Arthroplasty 26(6):855–860CrossRef

61.

Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Ikebuchi M, Iwaki H, Inori F, Nakamura H (2013) Porous Tantalum tibial component prevents periprosthetic loss of bone mineral density after total knee arthroplasty for five years – a matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 28(10):1760–1764CrossRef

62.

Radnay CS, Scuderi GR (2006) Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:83–92CrossRef

63.

Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2013) Three-year follow up utilizing tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28(9):1556–1560CrossRef

64.

Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP (2012) Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):199–204CrossRef

65.

Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2011) Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(5):478–484CrossRef

66.

Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2009) Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 2 Pt 1):131–138

67.

Ries MD, Cabalo A, Bozic KJ, Anderson M (2006) Porous tantalum patellar augmentation: the importance of residual bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:166–170CrossRef

68.

Nelson CL, Lonner JH, Lahiji A, Kim J, Lotke PA (2003) Use of trabecular metal patella for marked patella bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 181(7 Suppl 1):37–41CrossRef

69.

Nasser S, Poggie RA (2004) Revision and salvage patellar arthroplasty using a porous tantalum implant. J Arthroplasty 19(5):562–572CrossRef

70.

Kamath AF, Gee AO, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Lotke PA, Lee GC (2012) Porous tantalum patellar components in revision total knee arthroplasty minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 27(1):82–87CrossRef

71.

Chalkin B, Minter J (2005) Limb salvage and abductor reattachment using a custom prosthesis with porous tantalum components. J Arthroplasty 20:127–130CrossRef

72.

Khan FA, Rose PS, Yanagisawa M, Lewallen DG, Sim FH (2012) Surgical technique: porous tantalum reconstruction for destructive non-primary periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):594–601CrossRef

73.

Holt GE, Christie MJ, Schwartz HS (2009) Trabecular metal endoprosthetic limb salvage reconstruction of the lower limb. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1079–1085CrossRef

74.

Guo X, Chen M, Feng W (2011) Electrostatic self-assembly of multilayer copolymeric membranes on the surface of porous tantalum implants for sustained release of doxorubicin. Int J Nanomedicine 6:3057–3064

75.

Joglekar SB, Rose PS, Lewallen DG, Sim FH (2012) Tantalum acetabular cups provide secure fixation in THA after pelvic irradiation at minimum 5-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):594–601CrossRef

76.

Zou X, Li H, Teng X, Xue Q, Egund N, Lind M, Bünger C (2005) Pedicle screw fixation enhances anterior lumbar interbody fusion with porous tantalum cages: an experimental study in pigs. Spine 30(14):E392–E399CrossRef

77.

Fernández-Fairen M, Murcia A, Torres A, Hernández-Vaquero D, Menzie AM (2012) Is anterior cervical fusion with a porous tantalum implant a cost-effective method to treat cervical disc disease with radiculopathy? Spine 37(20):1734–1741CrossRef

78.

Kasliwal MK, Baskin DS, Traynelis VC (2013) Failure of porous tantalum cervical interbody fusion devices: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(5):239–245CrossRef

79.

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):48–55CrossRef

80.

Zhang Y, Li L, Shi ZJ, Wang J, Li ZH (2013) Porous tantalum rod implant is an effective and safe choice for early-stage femoral head necrosis: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(2):211–217CrossRef

81.

Frigg A, Dougall H, Boyd S, Nigg B (2010) Can porous tantalum be used to achieve ankle and subtalar arthrodesis? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):209–216CrossRef

82.

Sagherian BH, Claridge RJ (2012) Porous tantalum as a structural graft in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 33(3):179–189CrossRef

83.

Gordon WJ, Conzemius MG, Birdsall E, Wannemuehler Y, Mallapragada S, Lewallen DG et al (2005) Chondroconductive potential of tantalum trabecular metal. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 75:229–233CrossRef

Title: The Use of Porous Tantalum for Reconstructing Bone Loss in Orthopedic Surgery
Authors: Nilesh Patil, MD
Stuart B. Goodman, MD
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Book: Advances in Metallic Biomaterials
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46835-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-46836-4

Copyright Year: 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46836-4_10

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Premium Partners