A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Pelvic periprosthetic bone mineral density measurement around cemented vs cementless acetabular prostheses. | LitMetric

Pelvic periprosthetic bone mineral density measurement around cemented vs cementless acetabular prostheses.

J Clin Densitom

Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Human Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Electronic address:

Published: April 2014

We compared the short-term precision of pelvic periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) measurement around a cementless acetabular prosthesis (n = 29) vs a cemented all-polyethylene acetabular prosthesis (n = 19) in patients after total hip arthroplasty. Two dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans of the pelvis were made on the same day in each subject with subject repositioning between scans and analyzed independently with a 4-region of interest model. Precision was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV%). The measured BMD around the cemented prostheses was greater than the cementless prostheses p < 0.004, all analyses). The net CV for pelvic BMD measurements around the cementless prosthesis was 1.9% vs 3.6% around the cemented prosthesis (F-test p < 0.001). The CVs of individual regions of interest was between 2.8% and 4.8% for the cementless prosthesis vs 4.4% to 8.4% for the cemented prosthesis (F-test; p < 0.05, all comparisons). Prospective studies would require 57 subjects to detect a 10% change in net pelvic BMD around a cementless prosthesis and 122 to detect a similar change around a cemented prosthesis with 90% power and with an alpha error of 0.05. In conclusion, the precision of pelvic BMD measurements made around cementless prostheses are better vs those for cemented prostheses. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry studies of cemented prosthesis require approximately double the number of subjects vs cementless prostheses to achieve a similar level of power.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2013.09.005DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cemented prosthesis
16
cementless prostheses
12
pelvic bmd
12
cementless prosthesis
12
prosthesis
9
pelvic periprosthetic
8
periprosthetic bone
8
bone mineral
8
mineral density
8
cemented
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!