Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 71–75 | Cite as

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

  • Giuseppe Sessa
  • Luciano Costarella
  • Calogero Puma Pagliarello
  • Antonio Di Stefano
  • Andrea Sessa
  • Gianluca TestaEmail author
  • Vito Pavone
Original Paper
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

The correlation between the clinical result and BMD values could suggest DEXA results as a predictor of implant loosening or longevity.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty DEXA Cementless stem Prosthetic loosening Periprosthetic BMD 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilkinson JM, Peel NFA, Elson RA et al (2001) Measuring bone mineral density of the pelvis and proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2):283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penny JO, Brixen K, Varmarken JE et al (2012) Changes in bone mineral density of the acetabulum, femoral neck and femoral shaft, after hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: two-year results from a randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(8):1036–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lerch M, Windhagen H, Stukenborg-Colsman CM et al (2013) Numeric simulation of bone remodelling patterns after implantation of a cementless straight stem. Int Orthop 37(12):2351–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen BL, Xie DH, Zheng ZM et al (2011) Comparison of the effects of alendronate sodium and calcitonin on bone–prosthesis osseointegration in osteoporotic rats. Osteoporos Int 22(1):265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S et al (2006) Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants: three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 27(35):5892–5900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franchi M, Bacchelli B, Martini D et al (2004) Early detachment of titanium particles from various different surfaces of endosseous dental implants. Biomaterials 25(12):2239–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 9.
    Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J et al (2009) Biology of implant osseointegration. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 9(2):61–71Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Digas G, Kärrholm J (2009) Five-year DEXA study of 88 hips with cemented femoral stem. Int Orthop 33(6):1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS (2007) Changes in the bone mineral density in the acetabulum and proximal femur after cementless total hip replacement: alumina-on-alumina versus alumina-on-polyethylene articulation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(2):174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venesman P, Vanninen E, Miettinen H et al (2012) Periprosthetic bone turnover after primary total hip arthroplasty measured by single-photon emission computed tomography. Scand J Surg 101(4):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leali A, Fetto JF (2004) Preservation of femoral bone mass after total hip replacements with a lateral flare stem. Int Orthop 28(3):151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Söderman P, Malchau H (2001) Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Vresilovic EJ, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (1994) Radiographic assessment of cementless femoral components: correlation with intraoperative mechanical stability. J Arthroplast 9(2):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pitto RP, Hayward A, Walker C et al (2010) Femoral bone density changes after total hip arthroplasty with uncemented taper-design stem: a five year follow-up study. Int Orthop 34(6):783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venesmaa PK, Kröger HP, Miettinen HJ et al (2001) Monitoring of periprosthetic BMD after uncemented total hip arthroplasty with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry—a 3-year follow-up study. J Bone Miner Metab 16(6):1056–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lerch M, von der Haar-Tran A, Windhagen H et al (2012) Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop 36(3):533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sano K, Ito K, Yamamoto K (2008) Changes of bone mineral density after cementless total hip arthroplasty with two different stems. Int Orthop 32(2):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 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
  24. 24.
    Brodner W, Bitzan P, Lomoschitz F et al (2004) Changes in bone mineral density in the proximal femur after cementless total hip arthroplasty: a five-year longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nixon M, Taylor G, Sheldon P et al (2007) Does bone quality predict loosening of cemented total hip replacements? J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(10):1303–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cavalli L, Brandi ML (2014) Periprosthetic bone loss: diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. F1000Research 2:266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Zhang X, Sun Y, Xie H, Liu J, Zhao Y, Xu Z (2018) The effect of simvastatin on periprosthetic bone mineral density in the hypercholesterolaemic patients after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 42(1):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties – Section of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital “Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele”University of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.II Clinic, Biomechanics LaboratoryRizzoli Orthopaedic InstituteBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations