Literature DB >> 22844043

Changes in bone mineral density of the acetabulum, femoral neck and femoral shaft, after hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: two-year results from a randomised study.

J O Penny1, K Brixen, J E Varmarken, O Ovesen, S Overgaard.   

Abstract

It is accepted that resurfacing hip replacement preserves the bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur better than total hip replacement (THR). However, no studies have investigated any possible difference on the acetabular side. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 39 patients were randomised into two groups to receive either a resurfacing or a THR and were followed for two years. One patient's resurfacing subsequently failed, leaving 19 patients in each group. Resurfaced replacements maintained proximal femoral BMD and, compared with THR, had an increased bone mineral density in Gruen zones 2, 3, 6, and particularly zone 7, with a gain of 7.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 12.5) compared with a loss of 14.6% (95% CI 7.6 to 21.6). Resurfacing replacements maintained the BMD of the medial femoral neck and increased that in the lateral zones between 12.8% (95% CI 4.3 to 21.4) and 25.9% (95% CI 7.1 to 44.6). On the acetabular side, BMD was similar in every zone at each point in time. The mean BMD of all acetabular regions in the resurfaced group was reduced to 96.2% (95% CI 93.7 to 98.6) and for the total hip replacement group to 97.6% (95% CI 93.7 to 101.5) (p = 0.4863). A mean total loss of 3.7% (95% CI 1.0 to 6.5) and 4.9% (95% CI 0.8 to 9.0) of BMD was found above the acetabular component in W1 and 10.2% (95% CI 0.9 to 19.4) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 14.4) medial to the implant in W2 for resurfaced replacements and THRs respectively. Resurfacing resulted in a mean loss of BMD of 6.7% (95% CI 0.7 to 12.7) in W3 but the BMD inferior to the acetabular component was maintained in both groups. These results suggest that the ability of a resurfacing hip replacement to preserve BMD only applies to the femoral side.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22844043     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28222

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


  10 in total

1.  Porous titanium construct cup compared to porous coated titanium cup in total hip arthroplasty. A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Mats Salemyr; Olle Muren; Thomas Eisler; Henrik Bodén; Ghazi Chammout; André Stark; Olof Sköldenberg
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

3.  Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016.

Authors:  Robert Sershon; Rishi Balkissoon; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

4.  The truths we seek and the randomised trial in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.853

5.  Radiographic evaluation of early periprosthetic acetabular bone contrast and prosthetic head acetabular coverage after uncemented and cemented total hip prosthesis in dogs.

Authors:  Ayman A Mostafa; Karin Lucas; Ingo Nolte; Patrick Wefstaedt
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-12-03       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  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

7.  Short to Midterm Follow-Up of Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density after Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Ribbed Anatomic Stem.

Authors:  Xiang-Dong Wu; Mian Tian; Yao He; Hong Chen; Yu Chen; Rahul Mishra; Wei Liu; Wei Huang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  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

Review 9.  Increased Mortality in Metal-on-Metal versus Non-Metal-on-Metal Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty at 10 Years and Longer Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  B G Pijls; J M T A Meessen; J W Schoones; M Fiocco; H J L van der Heide; A Sedrakyan; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An evaluation of proximal femur bone density in young, active patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty at one year postoperatively.

Authors:  Denis Nam; Rondek Salih; Robert L Barrack; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 2.135

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.