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
- 113 Downloads
Bone remodeling around the femoral component after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered to be an important factor in long-term stability and seems to be strictly related to the stem design, coating, and fixation. Stress shielding, micro-movement, and high intra-articular fluid pressure might activate macrophages and osteoclasts, causing progressive bone density decreases. Here we analyze the bone mineral density (BMD) around a cementless femoral stem during a 20-year period to better understand the adaptive bone changes around such implants during long-term follow-up.
In this retrospective study, 14 patients treated by THA were reviewed from a cohort of 84. Clinical evaluation with Harris Hip Score and radiographic assessment were performed throughout a 20-year follow-up. To evaluate the bone remodeling around the stem, we monitored the femoral BMD in four regions of interest with a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) post-operatively and at one, two, three, five and 20 years of follow-up.
The main BMD changes between the post-operative examination and the 20-year follow-up varied between + 11.19% and + 24.30%. Patients with signs of loosening, low Harris Hip Scores, and pain showed decreasing BMD values.
The correlation between the clinical result and BMD values could suggest DEXA results as a predictor of implant loosening or longevity.
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplasty DEXA Cementless stem Prosthetic loosening Periprosthetic BMD
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 7.Franchi M, Milena F, Gianluca G et al (2005) Peri-implant osteogenesis in health and osteoporosis. Micron 36(7–8):630–644Google Scholar
- 8.Galois L, Mainard D (2004) Bone ingrowth into two porous ceramics with different pore sizes: an experimental study. Acta Orthop Belg 70(6):598–603Google Scholar
- 9.Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J et al (2009) Biology of implant osseointegration. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 9(2):61–71Google Scholar
- 10.Ohta H, Kobayashi S, Saito N et al (2003) Sequential changes in periprosthetic bone mineral density following total hip arthroplasty: a 3-year follow-up. J Bone Miner Metab 21(4):229–233Google Scholar
- 16.Nilsdotter A, Bremander A (2011) Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris hip score (HHS), hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), Oxford hip score (OHS), Lequesne index of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip (LISOH), and American Academy of orthopedic surgeons (AAOS) hip and knee questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S200–S207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Yan SG, Weber P, Steinbrück A, Hua X, Jansson V, Schmidutz F (2017) Periprosthetic bone remodelling of short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop SICOT:1–10Google Scholar
- 23.Sariali E, Knaffo Y (2017) Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal anterior femoral flare and torsion Anatomic bases for metaphyseally fixed short stems design. Int Orthop 41(10):2017–2023Google Scholar
- 27.Iolascon G, Di Pietro G, Capaldo A et al (2010) Periprosthetic bone density as outcome of therapeutic response. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 7(1):27–31Google Scholar