A focus of orthopedic research is to improve osteointegration and outcomes of joint replacement. Material surface topography has been shown to alter cell adhesion, proliferation, and growth. The use of nanotopographical features to promote cell adhesion and bone formation is hoped to improve osteointegration and clinical outcomes. Use of block-copolymer self-assembled nanopatterns allows nanopillars to form via templated anodization with control over height and order, which has been shown to be of cellular importance. This project assesses the outcome of a human bone marrowderived co-culture of adherent osteoprogenitors and osteoclast progenitors on polished titania and titania patterned with 15 nm nanopillars, fabricated by a block-copolymer templated anodization technique. Substrate implantation in rabbit femurs is performed to confi rm the in vivo bone/implant integration. Quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate increased osteogenesis on the nanopillar substrate with scanning electron microscopy, histochemical staining, and real-time quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis performed. Osteoblast/osteoclast co-culture analysis shows an increase in osteoblastogenesis-related gene expression and reduction in osteoclastogenesis. Supporting this in vitro fi nding, in vivo implantation of substrates in rabbit femora indicates increased implant/bone contact by ≈20%. These favorable osteogenic characteristics demonstrate the potential of 15 nm titania nanopillars fabricated by the block-copolymer templated anodization technique.

No abstract

Aims Uncemented metal acetabular components show good osseointegration, but material stiffness causes stress shielding and retroacetabular bone loss. Cemented monoblock polyethylene components load more physiologically; however, the cement bone interface can suffer fibrous encapsulation and loosening. It was hypothesized that an uncemented titanium-sintered monoblock polyethylene component may offer the optimum combination of osseointegration and anatomical loading. Methods A total of 38 patients were prospectively enrolled and received an uncemented monoblock polyethylene acetabular (pressfit) component. This single cohort was then retrospectively compared with previously reported randomized cohorts of cemented monoblock (cemented) and trabecular metal (trabecular) acetabular implants. The primary outcome measure was periprosthetic bone density using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry over two years. Secondary outcomes included radiological and clinical analysis. Results Although there were differences in the number of males and females in each group, no significant sex bias was noted (p = 0.080). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in age (p = 0.910) or baseline lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) (p = 0.998) found between any of the groups (pressfit, cemented, or trabecular). The pressfit implant initially behaved like the trabecular component with an immediate fall in BMD in the inferior and medial regions, with preserved BMD laterally, suggesting lateral rim loading. However, the pressfit component subsequently showed a reversal in BMD medially with recovery back towards baseline, and a continued rise in lateral BMD. This would suggest that the pressfit component begins to reload the medial bone over time, more akin to the cemented component. Analysis of postoperative radiographs revealed no pressfit component subsidence or movement up to two years postoperatively (100% interobserver reliability). Medial defects seen immediately postoperatively in five cases had completely resolved by two years in four patients. Conclusion Initially, the uncemented monoblock component behaved similarly to the rigid trabecular metal component with lateral rim loading; however, over two years this changed to more closely resemble the loading pattern of a cemented polyethylene component with increasing medial pelvic loading. This indicates that the uncemented monoblock acetabular component may result in optimized fixation and preservation of retroacetabular bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):872–880.

No abstract