4.3 Article

Changes in bone mineral density of the distal femur after total knee arthroplasty: A 7-year DEXA follow-up comparing results between obese and nonobese patients

Journal

KNEE
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 232-235

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.03.004

Keywords

TKA; Obesity; BMD; Stress shielding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: Periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm(2)) decreases after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as a result of the stress-shielding phenomenon. It is not known whether obesity has an effect on this phenomenon or not. The aim of this study was to assess long-term periprosthetic BMD changes after MA and compare whether there is a difference between obese and nonobese patients. Methods: A total of 69 TKAs in 61 patients were performed, and BMD measurements of the distal femur were followed up to 7 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into two study groups according to their body mass index, and the groups were compared in relation to BMD and functional outcome. Results: The mean of periprosthetic bone loss during the 7-year follow-up varied from 10.3% to 30.6% depending on the region of interest (p < 0.0005). The highest bone-loss rates were detected during the first three postoperative months. A total of 26 patients were categorized as obese with a body mass index value of >= 30 kg/m(2). The obese patients' total periprosthetic BMD was higher at both baseline (8.6%) and 7 years after operation (p = 0.05) (15.2%). Conclusion: Periprosthetic bone loss around the femoral component continued for up to 7 years postoperatively. The loss of bone density was not associated with any negative clinical outcome in this study, but periprosthetic bone loss was of a smaller quantity in the obese which is probably due to higher weight induced stresses on bone. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available