Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Joint Replacement Instrumentation Limited (JRI) Ad
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lan, F.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lan, F.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, W.

Periprosthetic bone remodelling around a prosthesis for distal femoral tumours

MEASUREMENT BY DUAL-ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)

F. Lan, MD1; J. S. Wunder, MD, FRCS C2; A. M. Griffin, BSc2; A. M. Davis, PhD, MSc, BScPT2; R. S. Bell, MD, FRCS C2; L. M. White, MD, FRCP C1; M. Ichise, MD, FRCP C1; and W. Cole, MD, FRCS C3

1 Department of Medical Imaging
2 University Musculoskeletal Oncology Unit, Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X5.
3 Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr R. S. Bell.

We used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to evaluate the extent of periprosthetic bone remodelling around a prosthesis for distal femoral reconstruction, the Kotz modular femoral tibial replacement (KMFTR; Howmedica, Rutherford, New Jersey). A total of 23 patients was entered into the study which had four parts: 1) 17 patients were scanned three times on both the implant and contralateral legs to determine whether the precision of DEXA measurements was adequate to estimate bone loss surrounding the anchorage piece of the KMFTR; 2) in 23 patients the bone mineral density (BMD) in different regions of interest surrounding the diaphyseal anchorage was compared with that of the contralateral femur at the same location to test whether there was consistent evidence of loss of BMD adjacent to the prosthetic stem; 3) in 12 patients sequential studies were performed about one year apart to compare bone loss; and 4) bone loss was compared in ten patients with implants fixed by three screws and in 13 without screws.

The mean coefficients of variation (SD/mean) for the 17 sets of repeated scans ranged from 2.9% to 7.8% at different regions of interest in the KMFTR leg and from 1.4% to 2.5% in the contralateral leg. BMD was decreased in the KMFTR leg relative to the contralateral limb and the percentage of BMD loss in general increased as the region of interest moved distally in the femur. Studies done after one year showed no consistent pattern of progressive bone loss between the two measurements. The ten patients with implants fixed by screws were found to have a mean loss of BMD of 42% in the most distal part of the femur, while the 13 without screw fixation had a mean loss of 11%.

DEXA was shown to have adequate precision to evaluate loss of BMD around the KMFTR. This was evident relative to the contralateral leg in all patients and generally increased in the most distal part of the femur. In general, it stabilised between two measurements taken one year apart and was greater surrounding implants fixed by cross-locking screws.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General