4.5 Article

Bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 691-696

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00237-1

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty; bone mineral density; biochemical markers of bone turnover; aseptic loosening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of this study were to determine whether subjects with aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty (THA) have regional differences in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and systemic biochemical markers of bone turnover compared to subjects with successful implants. Proximal femoral and pelvic BMD were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bone turnover markers were assayed in 49 subjects 12.6 +/- 4.3 (mean +/- SD) years after cemented THA. Femoral BMD was lower in Gruen zones 2, 5, 6, and 7 in subjects with a loose femoral implant (n = 17) compared to those (n = 32) with fixed femoral implants (P < 0.05 all comparisons). This BMD difference was greatest (-31%, P = 0.02) in the proximal and medial region of the femur. Subjects with femoral loosening had higher levels of the bone resorption marker N-telopeptides of type-I collagen (P = 0.02) than those with a fixed femoral implant. No differences in pelvic BMD or bone turnover markers were found between subjects with loose (n = 18) versus fixed (n = 31) pelvic implants. This study suggests that failure of femoral components after cemented THA is associated with region-specific decreases in BMD and an increase in urinary excretion of N-telopeptide cross-links of type-I collagen. These surrogate outcome markers may be of value in monitoring response to antiresorptive therapies used to treat periprosthetic osteolysis, although the diagnosis of aseptic loosening remains clinical and radiological. (C) 2003 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available