Abstract
Introduction: Numerous reports in the literature refer to the femoral neck fracture rate in hip resurfacing. The aim of this study was to determine the bone mineral density and evidence of stress shielding around the femoral component of the Birmingham resurfacing prosthesis. Material and methods: Twenty-eight patients with primary unilateral osteoarthritis had a Birmingham resurfacing prosthesis. DEXA analysis of the proximal femur and femoral neck was performed and compared with the opposite unaffected side. Results: Total periprosthetic bone mineral density was 0.49% greater than the control, but this did not achieve statistical significance. Although the BMD of the femoral neck was slightly increased on the prosthetic side (1.002 g/cm2) as opposed to the control side, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The Birmingham resurfacing prosthesis does not appear to reduce femoral neck bone mineral density in comparison to the normal femoral neck bone density. We conclude that femoral neck fractures are unlikely to be due to stress shielding related to the prosthesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bobyn JD, Mortimer ES, Glassman AH et al (1992) Producing and avoiding stress shielding. Laboratory and clinical observations of noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 274:79–96
Cohen B, Rushton N (1995) Accuracy of DEXA measurement of bone mineral density after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 77B:479–483
Jordan GR, Loveridge N, Bell KL et al (2003) Increased femoral neck cancellous bone and connectivity in coxarthrosis (hip osteoarthritis). Bone 32(1):86–95
Kilgus DJ, Shimaoka EE, Tipton JS, Eberle RW (1993) 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] 75(2):279–287
Kiratli BJ, Heiner JP, McBeath AA, Wilson MA (1992) Determination of bone mineral density by dual X-ray absorptiometry in patients with uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 10(6):836–844
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(10):1526–1530
McCarthy CK, Steinberg GG, Agren M et al (1991) Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 73(5):774–778
McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P (1996) Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop 329(Suppl):89–98
Nishii T, Sugano N, Masuhara K et al (1997) Longitudinal evaluation of time-related bone remodelling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 339:121–131
Venesmaa PK, Kroger HP, Miettinen HJ et al (2001) 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 16(6):1056–1061
Watanabe Y, Shiba N, Matsuo S et al (2000) Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthroplasty 15:505–511
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harty, J.A., Devitt, B., Harty, L.C. et al. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis of peri-prosthetic stress shielding in the Birmingham resurfacing hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125, 693–695 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0059-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0059-4