Skip to main content
Log in

Periprosthetic mineralization changes around femoral stems: a prospective 12-month study with DEXA

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective was to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) changes around the proximal femur after implantation of two different anatomical stems.

Materials and methods

Thirty-six patients (19 women and 17 men) who underwent total hip replacement were recruited. A Bihapro stem was implanted in 23 patients (with a mean age of 60.9 years) and a Citation stem in 13 patients (with a mean age of 59.7 years). All patients underwent serial radiography of the affected hip (follow-up time: 12 months). Baseline periprosthetic and overall BMD were measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) 1 week and 12 months after hip replacement. Regions of interest (ROIs) were defined according to Gruen’s system (ROIs 1–7).

Results

All stems were classified as radiographically stable. Bone ongrowth (spot welds) was present in zones 1 and 2 in all patients with the Bihapro stem. The distribution of baseline densities was very similar in the two groups of patients. In Bihapro implants a significant increment of mineralisation was present in ROI 1 after 1 year; ROIs 2 to 7 showed no density variation. The following observations were made regarding the Citation implants: no increment in density was shown in ROI 1; the differences in densities among the ROIs were significant after 1 year in the global evaluation (p = 0.004); the comparison between the single ROIs showed decalcification in ROIs 2 and 7 and a density increment in ROI 5.

Conclusions

Bihapro stems appear to achieve adequate proximal fixation, avoiding the “stress shielding” phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress-shielding and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg 1987; 69 B: 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Summer DR, Galante JO. Determinants of stress shielding: design vs. materials vs. interface. Clin Orthop 1992; 274: 202–212.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kerner J, Huiskes R, Van Lenthe GH, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B, Engh CA. Correlation between pre-operative periprosthetic bone density and post-operative bone loss in THA can be explained by strain-adaptative remodelling. J Biomech 1999; 32: 695–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dickob M, Martini T. The cementless PM hip arthroplasty. Four-to-seven-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 195–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Refior HJ, Parhofer R, Ungethum M, Blomer W. Special problems of cementless fixation of total hip-joint endoprostheses with reference to the PM type. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1988; 107: 158–171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolf T, Reichelt A, Schlepckow P. Clinical results using the PM type of hip endoprosthesis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1988; 126: 637–642.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim YH, Oh SH, Kim JS, Lee SH. Total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of osseous ankylosed hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 414: 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gibbons CE, Davies AJ, Amis AA, Olearnik H, Parker BC, Scott JE. Periprosthetic bone mineral density changes with femoral components of differing design philosophy. Int Orthop 2001; 25: 89–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nishii T, Sugano N, Masuhara K, Shibuya T, Ochi T, Tamura S. Longitudinal evaluation of time related bone remodelling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; 339: 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Aldinger PR, Sabo D, Pritsch M, et al. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodelling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA. Calcif Tissue Int 2003; 73: 115–121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Soderman P, Malchau U. Is the Harris Hip Score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 2001; 384: 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop 1990; 257: 107–128.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Engh CA, McGovern TF, Bobyn JD, Harris WH. A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74A: 1009–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Engh CA, Bobyn ID. The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 231: 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kiratli BJ, Checovich MM, McBeath AA, Wilson MA, Heiner JP. Measurement of bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with the Wisconsin hip, an uncemented femoral stem. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11: 184–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mortimer ES, Rosenthall L, Paterson I, Bobyn JD. Effect of rotation on periprosthetic bone mineral measurements in a hip phantom. Clin Orthop 1996; 324: 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kroger H, Miettinen H, Arnala I, Koski E, Rushton N, Suomalainen O. 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 1996; 11: 1526–1530.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. West JD, Mayor MB, Collier JP. Potential errors inherent in quantitative densitometric analysis of orthopaedic radiographs: a study after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69: 58–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 1979; 141: 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kim YH, Oh SH, Kim JS. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a second-generation cementless total hip prosthesis in patients younger than fifty years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kroon PO, Freeman MR. Hydroxyapatite coating of hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74: 518–522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen B, Rushton N. Accuracy of DEXA measurement of bone mineral density after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77: 479–483.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zerahn B, Storgaard M, Johansen T, Olsen C, Lausten G, Kanstrup IL. Changes in bone mineral density adjacent to two biomechanically different types of cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 1998; 22: 225–229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes SS, Furia JP, Smith P, Pellegrini VD Jr. Atrophy of the proximal part of the femur after total hip arthroplasty without cement. A quantitative comparison of cobalt-chromium and titanium femoral stems with use of dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77: 231–239.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Richardson ML, Genant HK, Cann CE, et al. Assessment of metabolic bone diseases by quantitative computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 195: 224–238.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sabo D, Reiter A, Simank HG, Thomsen M, Lukoschek M, Ewerbeck V. Periprosthetic mineralization around cementless total hip endoprosthesis: longitudinal study and cross-sectional study on titanium threaded acetabular cup and cementless Spotorno stem with DEXA. Calcif Tissue Int 1998; 62: 177–182.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Venesmaa PK, Kroger HP, Miettinen HJ, Jurvelin JS, Suomalainen OT, Alhava EM. Monitoring of periprosthetic BMD after uncemented total hip arthroplasty with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry a 3-year follow-up study. J Bone Miner Res 2001; 16: 1056–1061.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Goh JC, Low SL, Bose K. Effect of femoral rotation on bone mineral density measurements with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1995; 57: 340–343.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bobyn JD, Pilliar RM, Binnington AG, Szivek JA. The effect of proximally and fully porous-coated canine hip stem design on bone modeling. J Orthop Res 1987; 5: 393–408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobs JJ, Sumner DR, Galante JO. Mechanisms of bone loss associated with total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 1993; 24: 583–590.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Paz Jimenez J, Hernandez Vaquero D, Murcia Mazon A, Amador Mellado J, Menendez Vinuela G, Rendueles C. The value of a densitometric follow-up in the evaluation of a total hip prosthesis. Rev Esp Cir Osteoart 1994; 173: 253–258.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hernandez Vaquero D, Paz Jimenez J, Murcia Mazon A, Allegre Mateo R, Martinez Garcìa J, Pena Vazquez J. Behavior of the femoral stem in the Bihapro hip prosthesis. Orthopedics 1999; 22: 1049–1053.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Galli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galli, M., Leone, A., Tamburrelli, F.C. et al. Periprosthetic mineralization changes around femoral stems: a prospective 12-month study with DEXA. Skeletal Radiol 37, 723–729 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0482-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0482-z

Keywords

Navigation