Literature DB >> 26952205

Difference in Postoperative Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density Changes Between 3 Major Designs of Uncemented Stems: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study.

Yutaka Inaba1, Naomi Kobayashi1, Masatoshi Oba1, Hiroyuki Ike1, So Kubota1, Tomoyuki Saito1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although few studies have examined the direct effect of stress shielding on clinical outcomes, periprosthetic bone loss due to stress shielding is still an issue of concern, especially when physicians perform uncemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) in younger patients. Differences in femoral stem design may affect the degree of postoperative stress shielding. Therefore, the characteristics of the behavior for stress shielding of each type of femoral stem should be determined. This study compares differences in bone mineral density (BMD) change in the femur after primary THA between 3 major types of uncemented stems.
METHODS: Among a total of 89 hips, 26 hips received THA with a fit-and-fill type stem (VerSys Fiber Metal MidCoat; Zimmer, Inc, Warsaw, IN), 32 hips received a tapered rectangular Zweymüller-type stem (SL-Plus; Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN), and 31 received a tapered wedge-type stem (Accolade TMZF; Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ). BMD measurements were performed with a HOLOGIC Discovery device (Hologic Inc, Waltham, MA).
RESULTS: BMD in the medial-proximal femur was maintained for 3 years after THA in the group with the tapered wedge-type stem. BMD in the lateral-proximal femur was maintained for 3 years after THA in the group with the Zweymüller-type stem. There were no significant differences in the Harris Hip Score among the 3 stem groups preoperatively and 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery.
CONCLUSION: There are clear differences in postoperative BMD loss of the proximal femur among these 3 commonly used uncemented stems.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone mineral density; stem design; stress shielding; total hip arthroplasty; uncemented arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26952205     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.009

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


  14 in total

1.  Peri-prosthetic bone remodeling and change in bone mineral density in the femur after cemented polished tapered stem implantation.

Authors:  Toshiki Iwase; Daigo Morita; Genta Takemoto; Hiroshi Fujita; Naoyuki Katayama; Hiromi Otsuka
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-03-08

2.  High incidence of early subtrochanteric lateral cortical atrophy after hip arthroplasty using bone-conserving short stem.

Authors:  Yoon Je Cho; Chan Il Bae; Wan Keun Yoon; Young Soo Chun; Kee Hyung Rhyu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Bone Remodeling of Two Anatomic Stems: Densitometric Study of the Redesign of the ABG-II Stem.

Authors:  Juan J Panisello; Jorge Lopez; Marina Lillo; Jesus Mateo; Carlos Martin; Antonio Herrera
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-07-03

4.  Fully hydroxyapatite-coated compaction broached and triple-tapered stem may reduce the risk of stress shielding after primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yuichi Kuroda; Shingo Hashimoto; Shinya Hayashi; Naoki Nakano; Takaaki Fujishiro; Takafumi Hiranaka; Ryosuke Kuroda; Tomoyuki Matsumoto
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Less periprosthetic bone loss following the anterolateral approach to the hip compared with the direct lateral approach.

Authors:  Terje O Ugland; Glenn Haugeberg; Svein Svenningsen; Stein H Ugland; Øystein H Berg; Are Hugo Pripp; Lars Nordsletten
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Anatomic grooved stem mitigates strain shielding compared to established total hip arthroplasty stem designs in finite-element models.

Authors:  Mark Heyland; Sara Checa; Daniel Kendoff; Georg N Duda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.379

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.  Perioperative patient-specific factors-based nomograms predict short-term periprosthetic bone loss after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Guangtao Fu; Mengyuan Li; Yunlian Xue; Qingtian Li; Zhantao Deng; Yuanchen Ma; Qiujian Zheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 9.  Factors Affecting Periprosthetic Bone Loss after Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Se-Won Lee; Weon-Yoo Kim; Joo-Hyoun Song; Jae-Hoon Kim; Hwan-Hee Lee
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2021-06-04

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.