Evidence Hub

Changes in periacetabular bone mineral density five years after resurfacing hip arthroplasty versus conventional total hip arthroplasty

Gerhardt DM, Smolders JM, Roovers EA, Rijnders TA, van Susante JL

Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy, 2019

82 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:: We studied whether acetabular bone mineral density (BMD) is better preserved after resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) versus small diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS:: This randomised controlled trial included 82 patients. BMD was measured in 5 periprosthetic regions of interest (ROI) with dual-energy absorptiometry (DEXA) preoperatively, at 3 and 6 months, 1, 2, 3 and 5 years postoperative. 34 RHA and 26 THA had a complete 5 years follow-up. 1 RHA and 1 THA were revised due to pseudotumour formation, 2 THA were revised because of recurrent dislocations and 1 RHA for avascular necrosis.

RESULTS:: Overall an initial decrease in BMD was observed for both implants, stabilising after 2 years. 5 years after RHA a BMD change of +1% in upper cranial, -4% ( p < 0.01) in cranial, -8% ( p < 0.01) in craniomedial, -7% ( p < 0.01) in medial and +4% in caudal ROI compared to baseline values was seen. 5 years after THA a BMD change of -3% ( p = 0.01), -13% ( p < 0.01), -21% ( p < 0.01), -11% ( p < 0.01) and -2% for each respective ROI. The observed BMD decrease in different regions was structurally favouring the RHA-cup, with significantly higher levels in the cranial and craniomedial ROI.

CONCLUSION:: Acetabular BMD is better preserved behind a rigid press-fit convex cup in RHA compared to a titanium threaded cup in conventional THA in the cranial and craniomedial ROI. Despite of a theoretical higher stress-shielding behind the stiff acetabular…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 82 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free