I'd like to pimp my thesis/oral presentations/next publication with some current facts on implant failure/insufficient osseointegration rates to emphasize the need for new adaptive materials in the field. Anyone got some numbers on that?
Check out the following article:
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Mar-Apr;27(2):421-7.
A retrospective comparison of 1,022 implants: immediate versus nonimmediate.
Peñarrocha-Diago M, Demarchi CL, Maestre-Ferrín L, Carrillo C, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago MA.
Thank you! For those interested: I also found this publication: Brydone, a S., Meek, D., & Maclaine, S. (2010). Bone grafting, orthopaedic biomaterials, and the clinical need for bone engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 224(12), 1329–1343. doi:10.1243/09544119JEIM770
Regretfully, there is no definitive answer to your question. The answers depend on the the anatomic location, e.g. craniofacial vs. long bone as the bone itself has different physiologies. At the same time, in places such as the USA, implant failure is not required to be reported unless the patient is either killed or injured as a result of the failure. Thus, failure rates in the literature are generally grossly underestimated and the specific mechanisms such as lack of osseointegration is not characterized. You can cite failure rates at best based on anatomic location, e.g. hip failures are in the 5%-10% of all procedures, is the best you can do with some form of confidence.
The Swedish implant registries have huge amounts of data on hip and knee joint replacement failure rates and failure modes. See attached sample report and also
http://www.shpr.se/en/default.aspx
http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/thePages/contact.php
Thank you both. That was really suprising how hard it is to find statistical data on this.
The UK also has (and publishes) extensive data. Here is a recent finding (with a link)
for un-cemented THA (total hip arthroplasty):
In this new UK study of ca. 35,000 cases uncemented THA cases,
the risk of revision for two alternative bearing surfaces pairs, in the first ca. 7.5 years,
was,
compared to metal on UHMWPE:
ca. 2X more likely for metal on metal (Co alloy vs. Co alloy)
and
ca. 1.5X more likely for ceramic on ceramic (Al2O3 vs. Al2O3)
See http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/95-B/6/747.abstract
Google does not much "advertise" Google Scholar. It is buried far down in the "More" pull-down menu of Google Search. However it is an excellent source of published papers and patents on any topic. I suggest you go there and type in "osseointegration". You will get ca. 36,000 hits in a fraction of a second. There are left-hand margin tools for narrowing your search in various ways.
Unless it is too old for your purposes (2001) see
Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation:
A review
free pdf at
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/01/38/2/pdf/branemark.pdf
Thank you for these articles and for the Google scholar hint. I've never used it before and it's so much better than any general search engine! Wish i'd discovered it much earlier!
Juliane
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress