Advertisement

Peri-prosthetic bone remodeling and change in bone mineral density in the femur after cemented polished tapered stem implantation

  • Toshiki IwaseEmail author
  • Daigo Morita
  • Genta Takemoto
  • Hiroshi Fujita
  • Naoyuki Katayama
  • Hiromi Otsuka
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

We examined longitudinal changes in bone mineral density (BMD) around the femur for 5 years after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using cemented collarless polished double-tapered stem implantation and investigated the influence of BMD changes on radiological remodeling of the femur.

Materials and methods

Sixty hips from 56 patients who underwent cemented THA with a collarless polished double-tapered stem were included. BMD was measured 2 weeks postoperatively (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and annually thereafter until 5 years after surgery using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry on the lumbar spine and proximal femur of the operated side according to the Gruen’s zone classification. We analyzed predictable factors for BMD preservation in the proximal femur and compared radiological remodeling of the femur and changes in BMD.

Results

BMD at 5 years in zone 7 decreased less than 10%, whereas BMD in zone 1 increased to over the baseline (+ 1.9%). Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that body weight was a predictor for positive BMD change in the proximal femur. The frequency of radiolucency of the femur was significantly lower in patients who exhibited an increase in BMD at 5 years compared with BMD at 2 weeks in zone 7.

Conclusion

BMD preservation of the proximal femur after cemented collarless polished double-tapered stem implantation was more effective in heavier patients. Furthermore, the frequency of radiolucency around the stem was significantly lower in patients who exceeded 100% of the baseline BMD in zone 7 at 5 years.

Keywords

Bone mineral density Cemented collarless polished tapered stem Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry Total hip arthroplasty Radiolucency 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Local Research Ethics Committee (No. H28-23).

References

  1. 1.
    Huiskes R (1990) The various stress patterns of press-fit, ingrown, and cemented femoral stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:27–38Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenthall L, Bobyn JD, Tanzer M (1999) Bone densitometry: influence of prosthetic design and hydroxyapatite coating on regional adaptive bone remodeling. Int Orthop 23(6):325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Digas G, Kärrholm J (2009) Five-year DEXA study of 88 hips with cemented femoral stem. Int Orhop 33(6):1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morita D, Iwase T, Ito T (2016) Bone restoration with cemented Exeter universal stem. Three-years longitudinal DEXA study in 165 hips for femur. J Orthop Sci 21(3):336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aro HT, Alm JJ, Moritz N, Mäkinen TJ, Lankinen P (2012) Low BMD affects initial stability and delays stem osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty in women. A 2-year RSA study of 39 patients. Acta Orthop 83(2):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJC, Ling RSM (1988) Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin N Am 19(3):477–489Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmalzried TP, Maloney WJ, Jasty M, Kwong LM, Harris WH (1993) Autopsy studies of the bone-cement interface in well-fixed cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 8(2):179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fujita H, Katayama N, Iwase T, Otsuka H (2012) Multi-center study of use of the Exeter stem in Japan: evaluation of 1000 primary THA. J Orthop Sci 17(4):370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bøe B, Heier T, Nordsletten L (2011) Measurement of early bone loss around an uncemented femoral stem. A methodological study with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in 16 patients. Acta Orthop 82(3):321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shen G (1998) Femoral stem fixation. An engineering interpretation of the long-term outcome of Charnley and Exeter stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(5):754–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaneuji A, Yamada K, Hirosaki K, Takano M, Matsumoto T (2009) Stem subsidence of polished and rough double-taper stems: in vitro mechanical effects on the cement-bone interface. Acta Orthop 80(3):270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Oba M, Ike H, Kubota S, Saito T (2016) Difference in postoperative periprosthetic bone mineral density changes between 3 major designs of uncemented stems: a 3-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 31(8):1836–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ling RSM, Charity J, Lee AJC, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Gie GA (2009) The long-term results of the original Exeter polished cemented femoral component: a follow-up report. J Arthroplasty 24(4):511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petheram TG, Whitehouse SL, Kazi HA, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Wilson MJ, Howell JR (2016) The Exeter Universal cemented femoral stem at 20–25 years. A report of 382 hips. Bone Joint J 98(11):1441–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fokter SK, Komadina R, Repse-Fokter A, Yerby SA, Kocijancic A, Marc J (2005) Etidronate does not suppress periprosthetic bone loss following cemented hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 29(6):362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shetty N, Hamer AJ, Stockley I, Eastell R, Willkinson JM (2006) Clinical and radiological outcome of total hip replacement 5 years after pamidronate therapy. A trial extension. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(10):1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knusten AR, Ebramzadeh E, Longjohn DB, Sangiorgio SN (2014) Systematic analysis of bisphosphonate intervention on periprosthetic BMD as a function of stem design. J Arthroplasty 29(6):1292–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stucinskas J, Clauss M, Tarasevicius S, Wingstrand H, Ilchmann T (2012) Long-term femoral bone remodeling after cemented hip arthroplasty with the Müller straight stem in the operated and nonoperated femora. J Arthroplasty 27(6):927–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stucinskas J, Clauss M, Tarasevicius S, Wingstrand H, Ilchmann T (2014) Dynamics of femoral bone remodelling in well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. A 20-year follow-up of 20 hips. Hip Int 24(2):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kröger H, Miettinen H, Arnala I, Koski E, Rushton N, Suomalainen O (1996) Evaluation of periprosthetic bone using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: precision of the method and effect of operation on bone mineral density. J Bone Min Res 11(10):1526–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHip & Knee Reconstruction and Arthroplasty Center, Hamamatsu Medical CenterHamamatsuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Institute for Joint ReplacementKyoto Katsura HospitalKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHokkaido Orthopedic Memorial HospitalSapporoJapan
  4. 4.Joint Reconstruction Center, Gifu Municipal HospitalGifuJapan

Personalised recommendations