Advertisement

Restoration of proximal periprosthetic bone loss by denosumab in cementless total hip arthroplasty

  • Satoshi Nagoya
  • Kenji Tateda
  • Shunichiro Okazaki
  • Ima Kosukegawa
  • Junya Shimizu
  • Toshihiko Yamashita
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

Summary

Denosumab contributed to the restoration of proximal periprosthetic bone loss around the femoral stem that were measured using a DEXA, especially in zone 7, at 1 year after cementless THA in elderly osteoporotic patients.

Introduction

Although bone quality is an important issue in elderly osteoporotic patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a cementless stem, periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) in the proximal femur has been reported to be decreased by 15–40% postoperatively. Some authors have examined the use of several types of bisphosphonates to prevent decreases in BMD in the proximal femur after cementless THA; however, few reports have demonstrated success in restoring BMD in the proximal medial femoral bone, such as zone 7.

Methods

We conducted prospective study comparing patients who underwent cementless THA administered with denosumab (10 patients) and without denosumab (10 patients). BMD around the femoral stem were measured using a DEXA immediately after surgery, and at 6 months and at 1 year after surgery. No difference was found between the two groups referred to the patient’s demographic data.

Results

We found that denosumab displayed definitive effects in increasing the % change in periprosthetic BMD at zone 7 by an average of 7.3% in patients with cementless THA, compared to control group who were given only vitamin D.

Conclusion

Denosumab is one of a number of anti-osteoporotic agents to have a definitive effect on the restoration of proximal periprosthetic bone loss, especially in zone 7, after cementless THA. Denosumab contributed to the restoration of decreased periprosthetic BMD to normal levels. As the decrease in BMD in the proximal femur after THA is considered to be apparent at 6–12 months after surgery, it is believed that prevention of the deterioration of bone quality is important in the proximal femur immediately after cementless THA for elderly female patients with osteoporosis.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Bone mineral density Femoral bone atrophy Denosumab Stress shielding 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Satoshi Nagoya declares that he occupies an endowed chair funded by ZimmerBiomet and Smith & Nephew. Kenji Tateda, Shunichiro Okazaki, Ima Kosukegawa, Junya Shimizu and Toshihiko Yamashita declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Berger RA (2003) Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop 417:232–241Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertin KC, Röttinger H (2004) Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery. A modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop 429:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE et al (2003) Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:39–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aro HT, Alm JJ, Moritz N et al (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 83:107–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamada H, Yoshihara Y, Henmi O et al (2009) Cementless total hip replacement: past, present, and future. J Orthop Sci 14:228–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwon DG, Lee TJ, Kang JS et al (2013) Correlation between stress shielding and clinical outcomes after total hip arthroplasty with extensively porous coated stems. J Arthroplasty 28:1728–1730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alm JJ, Tj Makinen, Lankinen P et al (2009) Female patients with low systemic BMD are prone to bone loss in Gruen zone 7 after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 80:521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smolders JM, Hol A, Rijnders T et al (2010) Changes in bone mineral density in the proximal femur after hip resurfacing and uncemented total hip replacement: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1509–1514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroger H, Miettinen H, Arnala I et al (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 Miner Res 11:1526–1530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirata Y, Inaba Y, Kobayashi N et al (2013) Comparison of mechanical stress and change in bone mineral density between two types of femoral implant using finite element analysis. J Arthroplasty 28:1731–1735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nysted M, Benum P, Klaksvik J et al (2011) Periprosthetic bone loss after insertion of an uncemented, customized femoral stem and an uncemented anatomical stem. A randomized DXA study with 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 82:410–416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spittlehouse AJ, Smith TW, Eastell R (1998) Bone loss around 2 different types of hip prostheses. J Arthroplasty 13:422–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knusten AR, Ebramzadeh E, Longjohn DB et al (2014) Systematic analysis of bisphosphonate intervention on periprosthetic BMD as a function of stem design. J Arthroplasty 29:1292–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boonen S, Adachi JD, Man Z et al (2011) Treatment with denosumab reduces the incidence of new vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:1727–1736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orwoll E, Teglbjaaaa CS, Langdahl BL et al (2012) A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of denosumab for the treatment of men with low bone mineral density. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97:3161–3169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matsumoto T, Kaneuji A, Hiejima Y et al (2012) Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ): a patient-based evaluation tool for hip-joint disease. The Subcommittee on Hip Disease Evaluation of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Orthop Sci 17:25–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibbons CE, Davies AJ, Amis AA et al (2001) Periprosthetic bone mineral density changes with femoral components of differing design philosophy. Int Orthop 25:89–92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lerch M, Kurtz A, Windhagen H et al (2012) The cementless Bicontact® stem in a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop 36:2211–2217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pitto RP, Hayward A, Walker C et al (2010) Femoral bone density changes after total hip arthroplasty with uncemented taper-design stem: a 5 year follow-up study. Int Orthop 34:783–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jahnke A, Engl S, Altmeyer C et al (2014) Changes of periprosthetic bone density after a cementless short hip stem: a clinical and radiological analysis. Int Orthop 38:2045–2050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fokter SK, Sarler T, Strahovnik A et al (2015) Results of total hip arthroplasty using a bionic hip stem. Int Orthop 39:1065–1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sköldenberg OG, Salemyr MO, Bodén HS et al (2011) The effect of weekly risedronate on periprosthetic bone resorption following total hip arthroplasty. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1857–1864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fokter SK, Komadina R, Repše-Fokter A et al (2005) Etidronate does not suppress periprosthetic bone loss following cemented hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 29:362–367CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott DF, Woltz JN, Smith RR (2013) Effect of zoledronic acid on reducing femoral bone mineral density loss following total hip arthroplasty. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 28:671–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zabaze RM, Libanati C, Austin M et al (2014) Differing effects of denosumab and alendronate on cortical and trabecular bone. Bone 59:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG et al (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Musculoskeletal Biomechanics and Surgical DevelopmentSapporo Medical UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySapporo Medical UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations