It is accepted that resurfacing hip replacement preserves the bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur better than total hip replacement (THR). However, no studies have investigated any possible difference on the acetabular side.

Between April 2007 and March 2009, 39 patients were randomised into two groups to receive either a resurfacing or a THR and were followed for two years. One patient’s resurfacing subsequently failed, leaving 19 patients in each group.

Resurfaced replacements maintained proximal femoral BMD and, compared with THR, had an increased bone mineral density in Gruen zones 2, 3, 6, and particularly zone 7, with a gain of 7.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 12.5) compared with a loss of 14.6% (95% CI 7.6 to 21.6). Resurfacing replacements maintained the BMD of the medial femoral neck and increased that in the lateral zones between 12.8% (95% CI 4.3 to 21.4) and 25.9% (95% CI 7.1 to 44.6).

On the acetabular side, BMD was similar in every zone at each point in time. The mean BMD of all acetabular regions in the resurfaced group was reduced to 96.2% (95% CI 93.7 to 98.6) and for the total hip replacement group to 97.6% (95% CI 93.7 to 101.5) (p = 0.4863). A mean total loss of 3.7% (95% CI 1.0 to 6.5) and 4.9% (95% CI 0.8 to 9.0) of BMD was found above the acetabular component in W1 and 10.2% (95% CI 0.9 to 19.4) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 14.4) medial to the implant in W2 for resurfaced replacements and THRs respectively. Resurfacing resulted in a mean loss of BMD of 6.7% (95% CI 0.7 to 12.7) in W3 but the BMD inferior to the acetabular component was maintained in both groups.

These results suggest that the ability of a resurfacing hip replacement to preserve BMD only applies to the femoral side.

Resurfacing THA is claimed to transfer stress naturally to the femur neck and preserve proximal femoral bone mass postoperatively. DXA is an established method in estimating BMD around a standard THA, but due to the anteversion of the femur neck, rotation could affect the size of the neck-regions and thereby the BMD measurements around a RTHA. To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the effects of hip rotation on BMD in the femoral neck around a RTHA.

We scanned the femoral neck of 15 patients twice in each position of 15° inward, 0° and 15° outward rotation, and analyzed BMD in a single and a six-region model. CVs were calculated for BMD in the same position as well as between different positions.

For double measurements in the same position we found mean CVs of 3.1% (range 2.5% – 3.7%) and 4.6% (range 2.2% – 8.6%) in the one- and six-region models, respectively. When the 15° outward position was excluded, the CVs decreased to 2.8% and 4.0%. With rotation, the mean CVs rose to 5.4% (range 3.2%–7.2%) and 11.8% (range 2.7% – 36.3%). This effect was most pronounced in the 6-region model, predominantly in the lateral and distal parts of the femoral neck, where the change was significantly different from the fixated position. For the single-region model 15° rotation could be allowed without compromising the precision.

We conclude that rotation adversely affects the precision of BMD measurements around a RTHA, but in the single-region model smaller rotations can be allowed.

With the hip fixated the six-region model produces low CVs, acceptable for longitudinal studies. For maximal topographical detail we prefer the six-region model and recommend that future longitudinal DXA studies, including RTHA, be performed standardised, Preferably, with the hip in the neutral or internal rotation.

Introduction: Implantation of a THA changes the strain distribution pattern in the proximal femur, with a massive loss of stress in the proximal part of the femur and an increase in stress at the distal part of the femoral component.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to quantify the changes in BMD during long-term follow-up, i.e. five years, after insertion of the collarless, two-side conical, cemented Exeter stem.

Material & Methods: Eighteen patients (all women), aged 55 to 80 years, undergoing THA were included in the study after informed consent. BMD was measured in 7 regions of interest according to Gruen et al., using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry postoperatively, after 18 and 60 months of follow-up. At the same time, the contra lateral hip and spine were scanned. Results were tested using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. P values below 0.05 were considered significant.

Results: During the first 18 months, a significant decrease in BMD was present in Gruen zones 2, 3, 6, and 7. No significant changes were seen in BMD of the zones 4, and 5 in the contra lateral hip, nor at the spine. In zone 1 there was a small but significant rise in BMD.

From 18 to 60 months of follow up we observed a significant rise in BMD in all Gruen zones but zone 4 and 7. Despite this the total periprostetic BMD decreased during the study periode. There was no significant decrease in BMD in the contra lateral hip. In the spine, we observed a significant rise in BMD.

Conclusion: During short-term follow-up (i.e. 18 months) after THA, BMD decreased in Gruen zones 2, 3, 6 and 7. The bone loss is similar to findings in other implants and seems to be related to the changes in stress pattern within the proximal femur. During long-term follow-up (i.e. 5 years) BMD increased again in these zones, however, BMD remained lower than baseline.