| Title |
The efficiency of risedronate in reducing bone resorption after total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials at a minimum of 6 months’ follow-up
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-018-0808-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liqing Yang |
| Abstract |
Recently risedronate is suggested to be effective for the prevention and treatment of for osteoporosis in total hip arthroplasty. This meta-analysis aimes to evaluate the efficacy of risedronate in reducing femoral periprosthetic bone mineral density loss in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. A systematic search was performed in Medline (1966-31 October 2017), PubMed (1966-31 October 2017), Embase (1980-31 October 2017), ScienceDirect (1985-31 October 2017) and the Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included. Fixed/random effect model was used according to the heterogeneity tested by I2 statistic. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 11.0 software. The outcome measures included periprosthetic bone mineral density, length of stay and adverse effects. Four RCTs including 198 patients met the inclusion criteria. The present meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between treatment groups in terms of periprosthetic bone mineral density in Gruen zones 1 (standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.758, 95% CI 0.469 to 1.047, P = 0.000), 2 (SMD = 0.814, 95% CI 0.523 to 1.106, P = 0.000), 3 (SMD = 0.340, 95% CI 0.059 to 0.622, P = 0.018), 6 (SMD = 2.400, 95% CI 2.029 to 2.771, P = 0.000), and 7 (SMD = 2.400, 95% CI 2.029 to 2.771, P = 0.000). Oral risedronate could significantly reduce periprosthetic bone resorption around an uncemented femoral stem (Gruen zones 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7) up to 6 months after THA. In addition, no severe adverse events were identified. Future trials of risedronate treatment after THA should focus on clinically relevant end points such as the risks of fracture and revision arthroplasty. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |