Does hydroxyapatite coating have no advantage over porous coating in primary total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

Yun-Lin Chen, Tiao Lin, An Liu, Ming-Min Shi, Bin Hu, Zhong-li Shi, Shi-Gui Yan

There are some arguments between the use of hydroxyapatite and porous coating. Some studies have shown that there is no difference between these two coatings in total hip arthroplasty (THA), while several other studies have shown that hydroxyapatite has advantages over the porous one. We have collected the studies in Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library from the earliest possible years to present, with the search strategy of ¿(HA OR hydroxyapatite) AND ((total hip arthroplasty) OR (total hip replacement)) AND (RCT* OR randomiz* OR control* OR compar* OR trial*)¿. The randomized controlled trials and comparative observation trials that evaluated the clinical and radiographic effects between hydroxyapatite coating and porous coating were included. Our main outcome measurements were Harris hip score (HHS) and survival, while the secondary outcome measurements were osteolysis, radiolucent lines, and polyethylene wear. Twelve RCTs and 9 comparative observation trials were included. Hydroxyapatite coating could improve the HHS (p¿<¿0.01), reduce the incidence of thigh pain (p¿=¿0.01), and reduce the incidence of femoral osteolysis (p¿=¿0.01), but hydroxyapatite coating had no advantages on survival (p¿=¿0.32), polyethylene wear (p¿=¿0.08), and radiolucent lines (p¿=¿0.78). Hydroxyapatite coating has shown to have an advantage over porous coating. The HHS and survival was duration-dependent¿if given the sufficient duration of follow-up, hydroxyapatite coating would be better than porous coating for the survival. The properties of hydroxyapatite and the implant design had influence on thigh pain incidence, femoral osteolysis, and polyethylene wear. Thickness of 50 to 80 ¿m and purity larger than 90% increased the thigh pain incidence. Anatomic design had less polyethylene wear.