Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 470, Issue 5, pp 1431–1435 | Cite as

Periprosthetic Bone Remodeling after 12 Years Differs in Cemented and Uncemented Hip Arthroplasties

  • Prakash Chandran
  • Mohammed Azzabi
  • Mark Andrews
  • John G. Bradley
Clinical Research



Different patterns of stress shielding may lead to differences in periprosthetic bone preservation around cemented and uncemented hips in the long term?


The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in periprosthetic bone density between cemented Charnley total hip and uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Furlong® THAs at a minimum followup of 12 years (mean, 16 years; range, 12–24 years).


We studied a cohort of 17 patients who had bilateral THAs with a cemented Charnley THA on one side and an uncemented Furlong® hydroxyapatite-coated THA on the other side. At a minimum followup of 12 years, Harris and Oxford hip scores were used to determine the function, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to quantify bone mineral density adjacent to the prosthesis. The results of the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan for cemented and uncemented hips were analyzed using paired-sample two-tailed t-tests. To compare the Harris hip scores, a nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used.


Bone mineral density was higher on the uncemented Furlong® side in Gruen Zones 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the proximal femur and DeLee and Charnley Zone 1 of the acetabulum. In all other zones, there was no difference. Comparison of Harris and Oxford hip scores showed no differences between the two hips.


Bone density is better preserved around the uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Furlong® stem compared with the Charnley cemented stem.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.



We thank Dr Jeremy Miles, senior lecturer in biostatistics, University of York, for assistance with the statistical analysis.


  1. 1.
    Aldinger PR, Sabo D, Pritsch M, Thomsen M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Breusch SJ. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Hertani W, Waddell JP, Anderson GI. The effect of partial vs. full hydroxyapatite coating on periprosthetic bone quality around the canine madreporic femoral stem. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53:518–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ang KC, Das De S, Goh JC, Low SL, Bose K. Periprosthetic bone remodelling after cementless total hipreplacement: a prospective comparison of two different implant designs. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:675–679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen B, Rushton N. Bone remodelling in the proximal femur after Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:815–819.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:45–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giannikas KA, Din R, Sadiq S, Dunningham TH. Medium-term results of the ABG total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:184–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kilgus DJ, Shimaoka EE, Tipton JS, Eberle RW. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement of bone mineral density around porous-coated cementless femoral implants: methods and preliminary results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:279–287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobayashi S, Eftekhar NS, Terayama K. Long term bone remodeling around the Charnley femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;326:162–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korovessis P, Piperos G, Michael A. Periprosthetic bone mineral density after Mueller and Zweymueller total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:214–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kroger H, Venesmaa P, Jurvelin J, Miettinen H, Suomalainen O, Alhava E. Bone density at the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;352:66–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laursen MB, Nielsen PT, Soballe K. DXA scanning of acetabulum in patients with cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Densitom. 2005;8:476–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lekamwasam S, Lenora RS. Effect of leg rotation on hip bone mineral density measurements. J Clin Densitom. 2003;6:331–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maistrelli GL, Fornasier V, Binnington A, McKenzie K, Sessa V, Harrington I. Effect of stem modulus in a total hip arthroplasty model. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:43–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarthy CK, Steinberg GG, Agren M, Leahey D, Wyman E, Baran DT. Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:774–778.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park YS, Lee JY, Yun SH, Jung MW, Oh I. Comparison of hydroxyapatite- and porous-coated stems in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rahmy AI, Gosens T, Blake GM, Tonino A, Fogelman I. Periprosthetic bone remodelling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxyapatite coating: a 3-year follow-up study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:281–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabatier JP, Guaydier-Souquieres G. Noninvasive methods of bone-mass measurement. Clin Rheumatol. 1989;8(suppl 2):41–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sharkey PF, Barrack RL, Tvedten DE. Five-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of the uncemented long-term stable fixation total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:546–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shetty AA, Slack R, Tindall A, James KD, Rand C. Results of a hydroxyapatite-coated (Furlong) total hip replacement: a 13- to 15-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1050–1054.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shetty NR, Hamer AJ, Kerry RM, Stockley I, Eastell R, Wilkinson JM. Bone remodelling around a cemented polyethylene cup: a longitudinal densitometry study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:455–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Theis JC, Beadel G. Changes in proximal femoral bone mineral density around a hydroxyapatite-coated hip joint arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:48–52.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Turner AW, Gillies RM, Sekel R, Morris P, Bruce W, Walsh WR. Computational bone remodelling simulations and comparisons with DEXA results. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:705–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venesmaa PK, Kröger 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wahner H. Technical aspects and clinical interpretation of bone mineral measurements. Public Health Rep. 1989;104(suppl):27–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash Chandran
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mohammed Azzabi
    • 1
  • Mark Andrews
    • 1
  • John G. Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.Trauma and OrthopaedicsScarborough General HospitalScarboroughUK
  2. 2.WarringtonUK

Personalised recommendations