Literature DB >> 17322430

Changes in the bone mineral density in the acetabulum and proximal femur after cementless total hip replacement: alumina-on-alumina versus alumina-on-polyethylene articulation.

Y-H Kim1, S-H Yoon, J-S Kim.   

Abstract

Our aim in this prospective study was to compare the bone mineral density (BMD) around cementless acetabular and femoral components which were identical in geometry and had the same alumina modular femoral head, but differed in regard to the material of the acetabular liners (alumina ceramic or polyethylene) in 50 patients (100 hips) who had undergone bilateral simultaneous primary total hip replacement. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans of the pelvis and proximal femur were obtained at one week, at one year, and annually thereafter during the five-year period of the study. At the final follow-up, the mean BMD had increased significantly in each group in acetabular zone I of DeLee and Charnley (20% (15% to 26%), p=0.003), but had decreased in acetabular zone II (24% (18% to 36%) in the alumina group and 25% (17% to 31%) in the polyethylene group, p=0.001). There was an increase in the mean BMD in zone III of 2% (0.8% to 3.2%) in the alumina group and 1% (0.6% to 2.2%) in the polyethylene group (p=0.315). There was a decrease in the mean BMD in the calcar region (femoral zone 7) of 15% (8% to 24%) in the alumina group and 14% (6% to 23%) in the polyethylene group (p<0.001). The mean bone loss in femoral zone 1 of Gruen et al was 2% (1.1% to 3.1%) in the alumina group and 3% (1.3% to 4.3%) in the polyethylene group (p=0.03), and in femoral zone 6, the mean bone loss was 15% (9% to 27%) in the alumina group and 14% (11% to 29%) in the polyethylene group compared with baseline values. There was an increase in the mean BMD on the final scans in femoral zones 2 (p=0.04), 3 (p=0.04), 4 (p=0.12) and 5 (p=0.049) in both groups. There was thus no significant difference in the bone remodelling of the acetabulum and femur five years after total hip replacement in those two groups where the only difference was in the acetabular liner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17322430     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.18634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  7 in total

1.  Bone mineral density as a marker of hip implant longevity: a prospective assessment of a cementless stem with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at twenty years.

Authors:  Giuseppe Sessa; Luciano Costarella; Calogero Puma Pagliarello; Antonio Di Stefano; Andrea Sessa; Gianluca Testa; Vito Pavone
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Comparison of Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs. Ceramic-on-Polyethylene for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of 15 Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Xiaobin Shang; Yan Fang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-12-16

Review 3.  Ultra-Short Bone Conserving Cementless Femoral Stem.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2021-12-01

4.  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

5.  Large head metal-on-metal cementless total hip arthroplasty versus 28 mm metal-on-polyethylene cementless total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wierd P Zijlstra; Nanne Bos; Jos J A M van Raaij
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Peri-acetabular bone mineral densityin total hip replacement.

Authors:  L Gauthier; L Dinh; P E Beaulé
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 5.853

7.  Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Hao-Dong Liang; Wei-Yi Yang; Jian-Ke Pan; He-Tao Huang; Ming-Hui Luo; Ling-Feng Zeng; Jun Liu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.