Literature DB >> 14661072

Periprosthetic bone remodelling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxyapatite coating: a 3-year follow-up study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss.

A I A Rahmy1, T Gosens, G M Blake, A Tonino, I Fogelman.   

Abstract

Periprosthetic bone loss is a major cause of concern in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Further studies are required to identify the factors determining the pattern of bone remodelling following THA and obtain improvements in the design and durability of prostheses. In this study, we monitored periprosthetic bone loss around two different types of hydroxyapatite coated femoral implant over a 3-year period to evaluate their design and investigate the relationship with the preoperative bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine, hip and forearm. Sixty patients (35 F, 25 M, mean age 63 years, range 46-75 years) undergoing THA were randomised to either the Anatomic Benoist Girard (ABG) or Mallory-Head (MH) femoral stem. Preoperative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were acquired of the posteroanterior (PA) and lateral lumbar spine, the contralateral hip and the non-dominant forearm. Postoperative DXA scans were performed to measure periprosthetic BMD at 10 days (treated as baseline), 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after THA using a standard Gruen zone analysis. Results were expressed as the percentage change from baseline and the data examined for the differences in bone loss between the different Gruen zones, between the ABG and MH stems, and the relationship with preoperative BMD. A total of 50 patients (24 ABG, 26 MH) completed the study. Three months after THA there was a statistically significant BMD decrease in every Gruen zone that varied between 5.6% and 13.8% for the ABG prosthesis and between 3.8% and 8.7% for the MH prosthesis. Subsequently, in most zones BMD reached a plateau or showed a small recovery. However, BMD continued to fall in Gruen zones 1 and 7 in ABG patients and Gruen zone 1 in MH patients. Bone loss was less in every Gruen zone in MH patients compared with ABG with the largest difference (10%, P=0.018) in Gruen zone 7. Highly significant relationships were found between periprosthetic bone loss and preoperative BMD measured at the PA spine ( P<0.001), total hip ( P=0.004) and total distal radius ( P<0.001). This study showed differences between two different designs of hydroxyapatite-coated implant that confirmed that prosthesis design influences periprosthetic bone loss. The study also showed that patients' bone density measured at the spine, hip or forearm at the time of operation was a major factor influencing bone loss around the femoral stem.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14661072     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1546-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  32 in total

Review 1.  What's new in hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  M H Huo; S M Cook
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  A proximal fixed anatomic femoral stem reduces stress shielding.

Authors:  T Niinimäki; J Junila; P Jalovaara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Monitoring of periprosthetic BMD after uncemented total hip arthroplasty with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry--a 3-year follow-up study.

Authors:  P K Venesmaa; H P Kröger; H J Miettinen; J S Jurvelin; O T Suomalainen; E M Alhava
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C K McCarthy; G G Steinberg; M Agren; D Leahey; E Wyman; D T Baran
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-09

5.  Measurement of bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with the Wisconsin hip, an uncemented femoral stem.

Authors:  B J Kiratli; M M Checovich; A A McBeath; M A Wilson; J P Heiner
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Evaluation of periprosthetic bone using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: precision of the method and effect of operation on bone mineral density.

Authors:  H Kröger; H Miettinen; I Arnala; E Koski; N Rushton; O Suomalainen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Longitudinal evaluation of time related bone remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  T Nishii; N Sugano; K Masuhara; T Shibuya; T Ochi; S Tamura
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Potential errors inherent in quantitative densitometric analysis of orthopaedic radiographs. A study after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J D West; M B Mayor; J P Collier
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.

Authors:  T A Gruen; G M McNeice; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic assessment of stress-shielding. A postmortem analysis.

Authors:  C A Engh; J P McAuley; C J Sychterz; M E Sacco; C A Engh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  41 in total

1.  Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study.

Authors:  Matthias Lerch; Annelene von der Haar-Tran; Henning Windhagen; Bernd A Behrens; Patrick Wefstaedt; Christina M Stukenborg-Colsman
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Periprosthetic bone remodeling after 12 years differs in cemented and uncemented hip arthroplasties.

Authors:  Prakash Chandran; Mohammed Azzabi; Mark Andrews; John G Bradley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Clinical and radiological outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  T Gosens; E J van Langelaan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-05-18       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Preoperative bone quality as a factor in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis comparing bone remodelling between two implant types.

Authors:  Bart Cornelis Hendrikus van der Wal; Ali Rahmy; Bernd Grimm; Ide Heyligers; Alphons Tonino
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-11-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Fixation and bone remodeling around a low stiffness stem in revision surgery.

Authors:  Johan Kärrholm; Reza Razaznejad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Changes in periprosthetic bone remodelling after redesigning an anatomic cementless stem.

Authors:  Juan J Panisello; Vicente Canales; Luis Herrero; Antonio Herrera; Jesús Mateo; María J Caballero
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Results of total hip arthroplasty using a bionic hip stem.

Authors:  Samo K Fokter; Taras Sarler; Andrej Strahovnik; Alenka Repše-Fokter
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Bone remodeling and hydroxyapatite resorption in coated primary hip prostheses.

Authors:  Alphons J Tonino; Bart C H van der Wal; Ide C Heyligers; Bernd Grimm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Periprosthetic DXA after total hip arthroplasty with short vs. ultra-short custom-made femoral stems: 37 patients followed for 3 years.

Authors:  Carlina V Albanese; Francesco S Santori; Laura Pavan; Ian D Learmonth; Roberto Passariello
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Female patients with low systemic BMD are prone to bone loss in Gruen zone 7 after cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jessica J Alm; Tatu J Mäkinen; Petteri Lankinen; Niko Moritz; Tero Vahlberg; Hannu T Aro
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.