Bone loss around failed femoral implant measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Venesmaa, Petri; Kröger, Heikki; Miettinen, Hannu; Jurvelin, Jukka S.; Suomalainen, O

doi:10.1007/s007760070047

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies following patients up to 10 years have shown a progressive recovery or a minimal loss of BMD after the first to second postoperative year [ 16,20,30,34]. A different pattern of BMD changes has been found around loosened implants [9,23,31,32]. The importance of the early (1-2 years) bone resorption that we and others have found around fixed stems is not known.…”

Section: Bone-mineral Densitymentioning

confidence: 81%

Differences in stability and bone remodeling between a customized uncemented hydroxyapatite coated and a standard cemented femoral stem A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry

Grant¹,

Aamodt

Falch³

et al. 2005

J. Orthop. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The custom made Unique® stem is designed to fit closely to the metaphyseal region of the femur in order to obtain maximum mechanical stability and optimal load transfer. Thirty‐seven patients (38 hips) with non‐inflammatory arthritis were randomized to the uncemented custom made Unique® stem or the Elite Plus stem inserted with cement. The patients have been followed clinically as well as with radiostereometry (RSA) and Dual‐energy X‐ray Absorptiometry (DXA) for 2 years. After 2 years the RSA result showed minimal translation and rotation for the Unique® stem while the Elite Plus rotated slightly (mean 1.05°) into retroversion. Compared to previous studies the Elite Plus was as stable as the Charnley prosthesis. The DXA results showed a significantly higher proximal and total (10% for the Unique versus 5% for Elite) bone loss for the Unique® stem compared to the Elite Plus. Thus the optimal proximal press‐fit of the custom made stem did secure a stable fixation, but did not decrease the proximal bone loss. © 2005 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Bone-mineral Densitymentioning

confidence: 81%

Differences in stability and bone remodeling between a customized uncemented hydroxyapatite coated and a standard cemented femoral stem A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry

Grant¹,

Aamodt

Falch³

et al. 2005

J. Orthop. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since declines in bone mass adjacent to femoral implants are associated with both high bone turnover [8] and loosening of the stem [14], the modest decrease of bone mass adjacent to the Evolution-K stem is very likely to be an advantage, or at least comparable, to the Spotorno stem.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zerahn

Lausten

Kanstrup

2004

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the differences in bone mineral density (BMD) adjacent to two biomechanically different cementless femoral stems (Spotorno and Evolution-K). Measurements were performed within the first week after surgery and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively in a prospective study of 31 patients with 37 total hip arthroplasties. A modified Harris hip score and a visual analogue score for patient satisfaction was used to evaluate the clinical outcome. For both stems, dual Xray absorptiometry measurements revealed a decrease in BMD in Gruen zone 7. Patients with a Spotorno stem also had a significant decrease in BMD in zones 1 and 2. In patients with an Evolution-K stem, there was a positive correlation between the clinical outcome and BMD in Gruen zones 1 and 4. Our data suggest that periprosthetic bone loss is equal to if not less pronounced adjacent to the Evolution-K stem as compared to the Spotorno stem.RØsumØ Nous avons comparØ les diffØrences dans les densitØs minØrales osseuses (DMO) au niveau de deux tiges fØmorales sans ciment de conception biomØcanique diffØrente (Spotorno et Evolution-K). Les mesures ont ØtØ exØcutØes dans la premire semaine aprs chirurgie et à 3, 6, 12, et 24 mois postopØratoires dans une Øtude prospective de 31 malades avec 37 arthroplasties totales de la hanche. Un score modifiØ de Harris et un score analogue visuel pour la satisfaction des patients ont ØtØ utilisØs pour Øvaluer le rØsultat clinique. Pour les deux tiges l'examen d'absorptiomtre biphotonique a rØvØlØ une baisse de DMO dans les zones 7 de Gruen. Les malades avec une tige Spotorno avaient aussi une baisse importante de DMO dans les zones 1 et 2. Chez les malades avec une tige Evolution-K il y avait une corrØlation positive entre le rØsultat clinique et la DMO dans les zones 1 et 4 de Gruen. Nos donnØes suggrent que la perte minØrales osseuses est Øquivalente au voisinage des deux tiges prothØtiques.

show abstract

“…Die Analysen wurden in so genannten Regions of Interest (ROI) nach Gruen durchgeführt [11]. Diese Methode zeichnet sich durch hohe Reproduzierbarkeit (Fehler in vivo < 0,6 %) und hohe Genauigkeit (Fehler in vivo < 5 %) aus [12]. Als Funktions-Score wählten wir den nach Merle d'AubignØ, da dieser sowohl als sehr praktikabler, als auch sehr kritischer Parameter in der Beurteilung der Funktionalität des Hüftgelenkes zu sein scheint [13].…”

Section: Dexa · Hüftendoprothese · Revision · Knochenallograftunclassified

“…Die Funktionalität wurde mit dem Merle d'AubignØ Funktions-Score erhoben. Die Patienten wurden nach 0, 5,3,6,9,12,18,24,36 und 60 Monaten nachuntersucht. Ergebnisse: Es gab keinen signifikanten Unterschied im BMD-Verlust zwischen den beiden Gruppen.…”

unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zementierte versus unzementierte Revisions-Hüftarthroplastik mit verdichtetem Knochenallograft - Prospektiv randomisierte Vergleichsstudie mit Jahres-Follow-up

Nesse¹,

Daniel²

2003

Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bone loss around failed femoral implant measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Differences in stability and bone remodeling between a customized uncemented hydroxyapatite coated and a standard cemented femoral stem A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry

Differences in stability and bone remodeling between a customized uncemented hydroxyapatite coated and a standard cemented femoral stem A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry

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

Zementierte versus unzementierte Revisions-Hüftarthroplastik mit verdichtetem Knochenallograft - Prospektiv randomisierte Vergleichsstudie mit Jahres-Follow-up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About