Effect of risedronate on femoral periprosthetic bone loss following total hip replacement

Ren, Liang; Wang, Weidong

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000010379

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two relevant meta-analysis about this topic have been published. [19,20] Main finding of our meta-analysis between ours was not consistent. Another difference between ours and the previous ones should be noted.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Efficacy of risedronate in improving bone mineral density in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Su¹,

Yi²,

Li³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Efficacy of risedronate in improving bone mineral density in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Su¹,

Yi²,

Li³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the materials and surface treatments used for CDRs and larger joint replacements are similar, physiological loading conditions, and kinematics differ. Nonetheless, complications such as periprosthetic bone loss have recently been reported for CDRs [15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Periprosthetic bone loss is a common observation following arthroplasty. Recognizing and understanding the nature of bone loss is vital as it determines the subsequent performance of the device and the overall outcome. Despite its significance, the term “bone loss” is often misused to describe inflammatory osteolysis, a complication with vastly different clinical outcomes and treatment plans. Therefore, the goal of this review was to report major findings related to vertebral radiographic bone changes around cervical disc replacements, mitigate discrepancies in clinical reports by introducing uniform terminology to the field, and establish a precedence that can be used to identify the important nuances between these distinct complications. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the keywords “cervical,” “disc replacement,” “osteolysis,” “bone loss,” “radiograph,” and “complications.” A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria with the majority being retrospective or case reports. Results Fourteen studies reported periprosthetic osteolysis in a total of 46 patients with onset ranging from 15–96 months after the index procedure. Reported causes included: metal hypersensitivity, infection, mechanical failure, and wear debris. Osteolysis was generally progressive and led to reoperation. Nine articles reported non-inflammatory bone loss in 527 patients (52.5%), typically within 3–6 months following implantation. The reported causes included: micromotion, stress shielding, and interrupted blood supply. With one exception, bone loss was reported to be non-progressive and had no effect on clinical outcome measures. Conclusions Non-progressive, early onset bone loss is a common finding after CDA and typically does not affect the reported short-term pain scores or lead to early revision. By contrast, osteolysis was less common, presenting more than a year post-operative and often accompanied by additional complications, leading to revision surgery. A greater understanding of the clinical significance is limited by the lack of long-term studies, inconsistent terminology, and infrequent use of histology and explant analyses. Uniform reporting and adoption of consistent terminology can mitigate some of these limitations. Executing these actionable items is critical to assess device performance and the risk of revision. Level of Evidence IV Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

show abstract

“…Fourthly, we find that there are another four similar meta-analyses published online in 2018 [5][6][7][8]. All of them were performed following the guideline of PRISMA and four declared that they were the first meta-analysis on this topic, while none of them had a protocol registration in any platform, such as the Cochrane Library and PROSPERO.…”

Section: Dear Editorsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Letter to the Editor: Oral risedronate increases Gruen zone bone mineral density after primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of risedronate on femoral periprosthetic bone loss following total hip replacement

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

Efficacy of risedronate in improving bone mineral density in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Efficacy of risedronate in improving bone mineral density in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

Letter to the Editor: Oral risedronate increases Gruen zone bone mineral density after primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About