Literature DB >> 22015997

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

Prakash Chandran1, Mohammed Azzabi, Mark Andrews, John G Bradley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Different patterns of stress shielding may lead to differences in periprosthetic bone preservation around cemented and uncemented hips in the long term? QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in periprosthetic bone density between cemented Charnley total hip and uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Furlong THAs at a minimum followup of 12 years (mean, 16 years; range, 12-24 years).
METHODS: We studied a cohort of 17 patients who had bilateral THAs with a cemented Charnley THA on one side and an uncemented Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated THA on the other side. At a minimum followup of 12 years, Harris and Oxford hip scores were used to determine the function, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to quantify bone mineral density adjacent to the prosthesis. The results of the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan for cemented and uncemented hips were analyzed using paired-sample two-tailed t-tests. To compare the Harris hip scores, a nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used.
RESULTS: Bone mineral density was higher on the uncemented Furlong side in Gruen Zones 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the proximal femur and DeLee and Charnley Zone 1 of the acetabulum. In all other zones, there was no difference. Comparison of Harris and Oxford hip scores showed no differences between the two hips.
CONCLUSION: Bone density is better preserved around the uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Furlong stem compared with the Charnley cemented stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22015997      PMCID: PMC3314759          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2134-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  27 in total

1.  Medium-term results of the ABG total hip arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Konstantinos A Giannikas; Robert Din; Sahzad Sadiq; Timothy H Dunningham
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  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.

Authors:  A I A Rahmy; T Gosens; G M Blake; A Tonino; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-12-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Changes in proximal femoral bone mineral density around a hydroxyapatite-coated hip joint arthroplasty.

Authors:  J C Theis; G Beadel
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.118

4.  Comparison of hydroxyapatite- and porous-coated stems in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Youn-Soo Park; Jong-Yoon Lee; Sang-Hak Yun; Min-Wook Jung; Irvin Oh
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2003-06

5.  Bone remodelling around a cemented polyethylene cup. A longitudinal densitometry study.

Authors:  N R Shetty; A J Hamer; R M Kerry; I Stockley; R Eastell; J M Wilkinson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-04

6.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  "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

8.  The effect of partial vs. full hydroxyapatite coating on periprosthetic bone quality around the canine madreporic femoral stem.

Authors:  W Al Hertani; J P Waddell; G I Anderson
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  2000-09

9.  Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA.

Authors:  P R Aldinger; D Sabo; M Pritsch; M Thomsen; H Mau; V Ewerbeck; S J Breusch
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  Effect of leg rotation on hip bone mineral density measurements.

Authors:  Sarath Lekamwasam; Robolge Sumith Janaka Lenora
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  9 in total

1.  Densitometric evaluation of periprosthetic bone remodeling.

Authors:  Paolo Domenico Parchi; Valentina Cervi; Nicola Piolanti; Gianluca Ciapini; Lorenzo Andreani; Iacopo Castellini; Andrea Poggetti; Michele Lisanti
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2014-09

2.  Femoral remodeling around Charnley total hip arthroplasty is unpredictable.

Authors:  Matthew J Teusink; Katharine A Callaghan; Noelle F Klocke; Devon D Goetz; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Cementless hydroxyapatite coated hip prostheses.

Authors:  Antonio Herrera; Jesús Mateo; Jorge Gil-Albarova; Antonio Lobo-Escolar; Elena Ibarz; Sergio Gabarre; Yolanda Más; Luis Gracia
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Long-term bone remodelling around 'legendary' cementless femoral stems.

Authors:  Charles Rivière; Guido Grappiolo; Charles A Engh; Jean-Pierre Vidalain; Antonia-F Chen; Nicolas Boehler; Jihad Matta; Pascal-André Vendittoli
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-02-26

5.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Radiological Outcomes and Bone Remodeling Outcomes Between Proximal Coated Single-Wedge New Stem and Full Coated Dual-Wedge Classic Stem in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hongpeng Hu; Zeming Liu; Bo Liu; Xuzhuang Ding; Sikai Liu; Tao Wu; Wenhui Ma; Yongtai Han
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-01-31

Review 6.  A review of UHMWPE wear-induced osteolysis: the role for early detection of the immune response.

Authors:  Adrese M Kandahari; Xinlin Yang; Kevin A Laroche; Abhijit S Dighe; Dongfeng Pan; Quanjun Cui
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 13.567

7.  Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Zeming Liu; Bo Liu; Sikai Liu; Mengnan Li; Xiao Chen; Yongtai Han
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-05-15

8.  Bone density measurements adjacent to acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty using dual-energy CT: an in vivo reliability and agreement study.

Authors:  Bo Mussmann; Poul Erik Andersen; Trine Torfing; Søren Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2018-08-30

9.  A Comparison of Risks and Benefits Regarding Hip Arthroplasty Fixation.

Authors:  Julia Matthias; Mathias P Bostrom; Joseph M Lane
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2021-11-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.