Literature DB >> 8889853

Evaluation of periprosthetic bone using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: precision of the method and effect of operation on bone mineral density.

H Kröger1, H Miettinen, I Arnala, E Koski, N Rushton, O Suomalainen.   

Abstract

To assess the perioperative bone loss of femur during total hip arthroplasty (THA), periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) of the seven regions of interests (Gruen zones) was determined with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) preoperatively in both proximal femurs and postoperatively in the involved side in 53 patients with degenerative hip osteoarthrosis. The mean (standard deviation, SD) precision error (coefficient of variation percent, CV%) in various regions of interest (ROIs) based on two consecutive measurements (n = 16) were 2.3 (0.8)%, 2.5 (1.5)%, and 2.8 (1.6)% for uncemented stems, cemented stems, and control sides, respectively. Furthermore, the mean variability caused by the rotation of femur was 3.5 (1.4)%. The most significant perioperative bone loss (13.5-19.2%) was found in the calcar area (zone 7) after noncemented THA. Zone 4, representing the bone below the prosthesis, also showed BMD decreases. These decreases suggest perioperative bone loss owing to rasping and reaming the calcar and bone canal. However, after cemented THA, highly significant BMD increases were found in all the lateral zones. The calcar area was the only site where significant perioperative bone loss was detected (12.8%). In conclusion, DXA is a precise method for quantifying bone mass and density changes in the follow-up of THA. However, when interpreting the results, the preoperative BMD, differences between the femurs and the effect of operation on bone mass should be taken into account. We suggest that the best reference for BMD follow-up is the periprosthetic BMD of the involved side measured soon after the THA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8889853     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650111020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  31 in total

1.  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

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.  Changes of bone mineral density after cementless total hip arthroplasty with two different stems.

Authors:  Keiji Sano; Kouji Ito; Kengo Yamamoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Changes in periprosthetic bone remodelling after redesigning an anatomic cementless stem.

Authors:  Juan J Panisello; Vicente Canales; Luis Herrero; Antonio Herrera; Jesús Mateo; María J Caballero
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  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

6.  Late remodeling around a proximally HA-coated tapered titanium femoral component.

Authors:  William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Rudolph G Geesink; Judy R Feinberg; Marybeth Naughton
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-11       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Five-year DEXA study of 88 hips with cemented femoral stem.

Authors:  Georgios Digas; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  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

9.  Prospective comparison of differences in bone mineral density adjacent to two biomechanically different types of cementless femoral stems.

Authors:  B Zerahn; G S Lausten; I-L Kanstrup
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Large femoral bone loss after hip revision using the uncemented proximally porous-coated Bi-Metric prosthesis: 22 hips followed for a mean of 6 years.

Authors:  Per Y Adolphson; Mats O F Salemyr; Olof G Sköldenberg; Henrik S G Bodén
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.