header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

COMPARISON OF BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS OF BONE TURNOVER FOLLOWING REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY WITH AND WITHOUT IMPACTION GRAFTING.



Abstract

Introduction: The long term success of impaction grafting depends on the remodelling process during incorporation. This project was devised to characterise any differences in the biochemical markers of bone turnover following revision hip arthroplasty performed with or without impaction grafting.

Methods: 87 patients were entered into this prospective study and grouped according to whether impaction allograft was used or not. Biochemical markers of bone turnover were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively on day 2, day 9, week 6, 6 months and 1 year. Osteocalcin, procollagen type-I N-terminal propeptide and bone specific alkaline phosphatase were measured as bone formation markers. C-telopeptide, pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline were measured as bone resorption markers.

Results: All patients had a successful outcome at one year. 50 patients with radiologically defined host-graft union were compared with 37 patients who did not receive an allograft. Markers of bone formation tended to rise by day 9 but the rise in osteocalcin was delayed in the graft group and was significantly lower at 6 months in comparison to the non-graft group (p=0.002). Alkaline phosphatase levels remained significantly elevated at one year in the graft group (p=0.027) whilst levels in the non-graft group had normalised. Markers of bone resorption also rise in both groups but with no significant differences between the groups.

Discussion: Following impaction grafting, new bone formation may be delayed in comparison to revisions performed without graft. The pattern of markers of bone resorption did not differ significantly between the groups suggesting that there is no large scale resorption of the impacted allograft in these cases.

These results provide a biochemical insight into the bone formation and bone resorption processes during allograft incorporation.

Correspondence should be addressed to The Secretary, BHS, c/o BOA, The Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE.