Literature DB >> 18078893

Proximal femoral bone mineral density after resurfacing total hip arthroplasty and after standard stem-type cementless total hip arthroplasty, both having similar neck preservation and the same articulation type.

Yasuhisa Hayaishi1, Hidenobu Miki, Takashi Nishii, Takehito Hananouchi, Hideki Yoshikawa, Nobuhiko Sugano.   

Abstract

To examine whether the Freeman cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), with femoral neck preservation and a large metal head, can prevent stress shielding in a manner similar to resurfacing THA, we compared femoral bone mineral density (BMD) change in 10 resurfacing THA patients (group A) and 16 cementless THA patients (group B). Six and twelve months postoperatively, the mean BMD ratio in zone 1 was significantly higher in group A (97% +/- 10%, 95% +/- 11%) than in group B (79% +/- 15%, 77% +/- 20%); at 12 months, the mean BMD ratio in zone 7 was significantly higher in group A (104% +/- 15%) than in group B (84% +/- 21%). The cementless THA might not be a substitute for the resurfacing THA with respect to prevention of proximal femoral bone loss at the femoral neck, although it may prevent some major complications after resurfacing THA such as neck fracture and avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18078893     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  8 in total

1.  Bone mineral density of the proximal femur recovers after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Matteo Cadossi; Antonio Moroni; Matteo Romagnoli; Eugenio Chiarello; Cesare Faldini; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2010-05

2.  2011 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: when to release patients to high-impact activities after hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Katherine M Bedigrew; Erin L Ruh; Qin Zhang; John C Clohisy; Robert L Barrack; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Is mid-head resection a durable conservative option in the presence of poor femoral bone quality and distorted anatomy?

Authors:  Derek J W McMinn; Chandra Pradhan; Hena Ziaee; Joseph Daniel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Asaad Asaad; Alister Hart; Michael M Y Khoo; Kevin Ilo; Gavin Schaller; Jonathan D J Black; Sarah Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Bone mineral density of the femoral neck in resurfacing hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jeannette Østergaard Penny; Ole Ovesen; Kim Brixen; Jens-Erik Varmarken; Søren Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Bone mineral density of the proximal femur after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Arja Häkkinen; Håkan Borg; Mikko Hakulinen; Jukka Jurvelin; Esa Anttila; Tapani Parviainen; Ilkka Kiviranta
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 7.  The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Toby O Smith; Rachel Nichols; Simon T Donell; Caroline B Hing
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Quantitating the effect of prosthesis design on femoral remodeling using high-resolution region-free densitometric analysis (DXA-RFA).

Authors:  Mohsen Farzi; Richard M Morris; Jeannette Penny; Lang Yang; Jose M Pozo; Søren Overgaard; Alejandro F Frangi; Jeremy Mark Wilkinson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.494

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.