1983
DOI: 10.1097/00003086-198306000-00015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Urinary Cobalt Levels in Patients with Porous Austin-Moore Prostheses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1984
1984
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…25 Elevation of urinary Co in patients with CoCr alloy implants has been reported to be between 5 and 22 µg/l for porous AustinMoore prostheses, but this was transient. 28 In comparing patients having a metal-on-metal implant with those with a ceramic-polyethylene prosthesis containing no cobalt, Brodner et al 29 found a mean level of Co of 1.1 µg/l after one year in the metal-on-metal group, which was significantly higher than that in the control group, which had a median below the detection limit of 0.3 µg/l. This was confirmed by Jacobs et al 30 who analysed the concentration of Co and Cr in the serum and urine of two groups of patients with metalon-metal implants followed up for over 20 years.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 Elevation of urinary Co in patients with CoCr alloy implants has been reported to be between 5 and 22 µg/l for porous AustinMoore prostheses, but this was transient. 28 In comparing patients having a metal-on-metal implant with those with a ceramic-polyethylene prosthesis containing no cobalt, Brodner et al 29 found a mean level of Co of 1.1 µg/l after one year in the metal-on-metal group, which was significantly higher than that in the control group, which had a median below the detection limit of 0.3 µg/l. This was confirmed by Jacobs et al 30 who analysed the concentration of Co and Cr in the serum and urine of two groups of patients with metalon-metal implants followed up for over 20 years.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As observed both experimentally and clinically, small quantities of metal ions are released from the surface of Co-Cr-Mo alloy implants (Laing et al 1959, Emngus et al 1960, Ferguson et al 1960, 1962, Coleman et al 1973, Lord et al 1979, Dobbs & Minski 1980, Jorgensen et al 1983, and these quantities may increase dramatically in cases of failed prostheses (Evans et al 1974, Jones et al 1975. The importance of metal release from the implant is due to the risk of toxicity and of sensitivity to metals as a possible cause of Ioosening (Evans et al 1974, Elves et al 1975, Langlais et al 1980, Uchida et al 1980) and of carcinogenicity (Oppenheimer et al 1956, Heath et al 1971, Kazantzis 1981, Norseth 1981.…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…They include concerns about (a) diminished fatigue strength from the coating process, such as sintering (34,49,55) or plasma spraying (32,35,37); (b) morphology of the coatings for improved bone ingrowth, such as beads (4,10,12,31,42,52,53), sintered fiber metal (19,28), o r metal powders (6,37,44); (c) pore sizes of the coatings (4,10,12,33); (d) biocompatibility of the available materials, such as the harmful effects of released metal ions (1,5,7,24,26); (e) implant stability…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of critical issues remain unresolved that are key to the success of porous-coated implants (7). They include concerns about (a) diminished fatigue strength from the coating process, such as sintering (34,49,55) or plasma spraying (32,35,37); (b) morphology of the coatings for improved bone ingrowth, such as beads (4,10,12, 31,42,52,53), sintered fiber metal (19,28), o r metal powders (6,37,44); (c) pore sizes of the coatings (4,10,12,33); (d) biocompatibility of the available materials, such as the harmful effects of released metal ions (1,5,7,24,26); (e) implant stability for bone ingrowth (8, 41,47); (f) enhancers for bone ingrowth, such as hydroxyapatite coatings (14,18,25), electrical stimulation (15, 45,51), or growth factors (17,29); (g) inhibitors of bone ingrowth (30,39,48); (h) adaptation of host bone to porous prostheses (22,50); (i) designs of porous-coated implants (7,42); and 6) analyses of retrieved implants (11,13,20).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%