0
Articles   |    
Bone Density Adjacent to Press-Fit Acetabular Components A Prospective Analysis with Quantitative Computed Tomography
John M. Wright, MD; Paul M. Pellicci, MD; Eduardo A. Salvati, MD; Bernard Ghelman, MD; Mathew M. Roberts, MD; Jason L. Koh, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at The Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
John M. Wright, MD The Steadman-Hawkins Clinic, 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 400, Vail, CO 81657
Paul M. Pellicci, MD Eduardo A. Salvati, MD Bernard Ghelman, MD Mathew M. Roberts, MD Jason L. Koh, MD The Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:529-529 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background:

The status of periprosthetic bone stock is an important concern when revision total hip arthroplasty is undertaken. Remodeling of periprosthetic femoral bone after total hip arthroplasty has been studied extensively, and the phenomenon of femoral stress-shielding has been well characterized. Finite element analysis and computer-simulated remodeling theory have predicted that retroacetabular bone-mineral density decreases after total hip arthroplasty; however, remodeling of periprosthetic pelvic bone in this setting has yet to be well defined. This study was conducted to evaluate the short-term natural history of periacetabular bone-mineral density following primary total hip arthroplasty.

Methods:

Periacetabular bone-mineral density was studied prospectively in a group of twenty-six patients who underwent primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis. Density within the central part of the ilium (directly cephalad to a press-fit acetabular component) was assessed with serial quantitative computed tomography. Baseline density was measured within the first five days following the total hip arthroplasty. Ipsilateral density measurements were repeated at an average of 1.28 years postoperatively. Density values at corresponding levels of the contralateral ilium were obtained at both time-points in all patients to serve as internal controls.

Results:

Bone-mineral density decreased significantly (p £ 0.001) between the two time-points on the side of the operation. The mean absolute magnitude of the interval density reduction (75 mg/cc) was greatest immediately adjacent to the implant (p < 0.001), but it was also significantly reduced (by 35 mg/cc) at a distance of 10 mm cephalad to the implant (p = 0.001). Relative declines in mean density ranged from 33% to 20% of the baseline values. No focal bone resorption (osteolysis) was detected at the time of this short-term follow-up study. With the numbers available, no significant interval alteration in bone-mineral density was found on the untreated (internal control) side (p 0.07).

Conclusions:

We suggest that the observed decline in bone-mineral density represents a remodeling response to an altered stress pattern within the pelvis that was induced by the presence of the acetabular implant. This finding corroborates the predictions of finite element analysis and computer-simulated remodeling theory. It remains to be seen whether this trend of atrophy of retroacetabular bone stock will continue with longer follow-up or will ultimately affect the long-term stability of press-fit acetabular components.

Figures in this Article
    Remodeling of the proximal part of the femur following primary total hip arthroplasty has been well characterized1-5. "Femoral stress-shielding" describes the manifestation of Wolff’s law whereby proximal femoral bone is resorbed as stress is transferred to the femoral diaphysis through the femoral component6-10. Quantification of bone-mineral content adjacent to uncemented femoral prostheses with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has demonstrated reductions in proximal femoral bone-mineral density as large as 52%11-15. The amount of proximal femoral bone attenuation has been correlated with stem size, stem stiffness, extent of porous coating, and degree of preexisting osteopenia16-28. This mechanical adaptation is not unique to cementless femoral components. Similar reductions in proximal femoral bone-mineral content have been demonstrated following total hip arthroplasty with cement29-31.
    Contrary to the rigorous analysis of periprosthetic femoral bone-mineral density following total hip arthroplasty, the status of periprosthetic pelvic bone-mineral density in this setting has not been well defined or investigated. Finite element analyses of press-fit acetabular components have predicted stress concentrations at the rim of the implant with associated load transfer to the pelvic cortex and decreased stress within the trabecular bone cephalad to the implant32,33. Application of computer-simulated remodeling theory has predicted a resultant redistribution of host bone density consisting of (1) localized bone hypertrophy at the periphery of the acetabular component and (2) attenuation of bone density behind the acetabular dome33-35. The present study was conducted to prospectively evaluate the short-term natural history of periacetabular bone-mineral density following total hip arthroplasty.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:Computed tomographic scout image demonstrating the orientation of the five axial imaging levels (horizontal solid lines) at which bone-mineral density was quantified within the ilium. The interteardrop line (dashed line) was used as a reference to confirm (and reproduce) appropriate pelvic orientation in the coronal plane.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Schematic representation of the region of interest. Bone-mineral density was quantified at five separate levels within this region. Level 1, which refers to the most caudal plane, was set to be tangential to the most cephalad point of the acetabular implant. The levels (1 through 5) within the region of interest progress in a caudal-to-cephalad sequence.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:Computed tomographic image through the retroacetabular region of a left ilium. Note the position of the circular cross section of the region of interest (labeled "1") within the central part of the ilium. The density phantom (labeled "ABC") was positioned anterior to the patient.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 4:Comparison of the mean baseline bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean baseline bone-mineral density on the untreated side.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 5:Comparison of the mean follow-up bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean follow-up bone-mineral density on the untreated side.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 6:Comparison of the mean baseline bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean follow-up bone-mineral density on the treated side.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 7:Schematic representation of the redistribution of stress away from the trabecular bone of the central part of the ilium to the peripheral cortex of the ilium by the acetabular implant. We hypothesize that regional pelvic bone-mineral density remodels in response to this pattern of stress redistribution. (Reprinted, with modification, from: Engh CA, Zettl-Schaffer KF, Kukita Y, Sweet D, Jasty M, Bragdon C: Histological and radiographic assessment of well functioning porous-coated acetabular components. A human postmortem retrieval study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:816.)
    Twenty-six subjects (thirteen men and thirteen women) were recruited from the private practices of the two senior authors (P.M.P. and E.A.S.). The project was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all volunteers. Subjects underwent unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty with a hybrid construct (a cementless acetabular component and a cemented stem). The mean age of the subjects at the time of surgery was 67.6 years (range, forty-five to seventy-nine years). The underlying diagnosis was osteoarthritis in each patient. The same femoral component design (Omnifit; Osteonics, Allendale, New Jersey) and the same hemispherical titanium-alloy acetabular component design (Trilogy; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) were implanted in all patients. All femoral components were secured with cement with use of a distal plug, canal pressurization, and vacuum mixing for porosity reduction. Press-fit fixation of all acetabular components was achieved by underreaming the socket by 2 mm. No supplemental screw fixation was used. Patients who required supplemental screw fixation were excluded from the study because the presence of acetabular screws precluded accurate measurement of retroacetabular bone-mineral density. Patients with bilateral hip involvement were also excluded so that the contralateral (nondiseased) hip could serve as a valid internal control for each patient. Because of the exclusion criteria and the voluntary basis for participation, the study cohort was a nonconsecutive, selected series of patients.
    Bone-mineral density was measured with quantitative computed tomography36-38. Subjects were positioned supine on a High Speed Advantage Gantry CT2 unit (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; manufactured in 1995). Frontal scout images were made to confirm proper pelvic position and true axial orientation of the imaging planes (Fig. 1). A standard-density calibration phantom was positioned in the field directly anterior to the patient, and the scanner was recalibrated prior to analysis of each hip. True three-dimensional volumetric density calculations were performed with standard vertebral densitometry software (General Electric, 1995).
    Bone-mineral density was assessed within a specific region of interest that was defined by a cylinder of cancellous bone centered within the ilium directly cephalad to the acetabular dome (Fig. 2). Density was calculated at five separate levels within the region of interest. These five circular axial windows were separated by 2.5-mm increments. The cross-sectional area of the region of interest was 100 mm2 (Fig. 3). The level of the most caudal axial window was positioned to be tangential to the most cephalad point of the acetabular implant.
    Bone-mineral density was quantified at two time-points. Baseline bone-mineral density was measured within the first five days following the total hip arthroplasty. Follow-up bone-mineral density was measured after an average (and standard deviation) of 1.28 ± 0.2 years (range, 1.00 to 1.85 years). Bone-mineral density was measured at corresponding levels within the contralateral (nondiseased) ilium at both time-points to serve as an internal control. A mean bone-mineral-density value was calculated for each of the five levels on both the treated and the untreated side at the two time-points. Statistical comparisons between the treated and untreated sides were performed with paired t tests. The same form of statistical analysis was employed for comparison between baseline measurements and those made at the time of follow-up.
    At the time of the follow-up density measurements, all patients were queried regarding their satisfaction with the result of the hip surgery, their resultant activity level, and the presence of any residual hip symptoms.

    Patient Positioning and Measurement Reproducibility

    The validity of side-to-side density comparisons was predicated upon the fact that the imaging planes intersected both sides of the pelvis at corresponding levels. This was ensured by examination of the frontal computed tomography scout images (Fig. 1). The goal in positioning the patient was to establish parallelism between (1) the five horizontal scout-film lines (representing the five axial imaging planes) and (2) a reference line tangential to both teardrops (modified Hilgenreiner line). The vertical positions of the imaging planes were adjusted so that the line corresponding to level 1 was tangential to the most cephalad portion of the acetabular component (Fig. 1).
    Pelvic rotation within the axial plane was assessed on the frontal scout images by noting (1) the morphology of the obturator foramen and (2) the alignment between the symphysis pubis and the lumbar spinous processes. Axial rotation, even if present, was not a potential source of error because it does not alter the imaging plane of an axial tomogram.
    At the time of positioning of the patient for follow-up quantitative computed tomography, the initial and follow-up frontal scout images were examined simultaneously to confirm duplication of the orientation of the axial imaging planes.
    The amount of pelvic tilt (rotation in the sagittal plane) was evaluated by observing (1) the profile of the obturator foramen on the frontal scout films and (2) the contour of the cross sections of the ilium on the tomographic images. Variability between the amount of pelvic tilt on the baseline scans and that on the follow-up scans is a potential source of error. However, we detected negligible variability between the amounts of pelvic tilt that individuals exhibited at the times of their baseline and follow-up scans.
    A formal reproducibility study was conducted to assess the validity of quantitative computed tomography as a means of consistently measuring pelvic bone-mineral density. Six healthy volunteers underwent quantitative computed tomography of the hips according to the protocol specified above. Because none of these subjects had hip prostheses, the position of the most caudal imaging plane (level 1) was set to be tangential to the most cephalad aspect of the acetabular subchondral plate. The subjects were placed in the scanner a second time, and repeat density measurements were obtained. Pelvic position and the levels of the five axial imaging planes were duplicated at the time of reimaging with the methods described above.
    High correlation was found between the initial and repeated bone-mineral-density values at levels 2 through 5 (correlation coefficients 0.89). The reproducibility at level 1 (correlation coefficient = 0.80) was inferior to that at the more cephalad levels, but it was still satisfactory. In fact, the difference between repeated measurements at each of the five levels was always <10% of the average of the two measurements.
    The diminished reproducibility at level 1 was attributed to the abrupt transition between cancellous and cortical bone that occurs along the subchondral plate of the acetabulum. The bone-mineral-density gradient within the ilium is more gradual at the more cephalad levels.
    At both time-points, bone-mineral density within the region of interest was greatest immediately adjacent to the implant (level 1), and it progressively decreased with further distance cephalad to the acetabulum. This trend was consistent on both the treated and the untreated side (Figs. 4, 5, and 6).
    The mean baseline bone-mineral-density values were greater on the treated side than on the untreated (control) side at all five levels (Fig. 4). The differences in baseline values were significant (p < 0.05) at levels 1 through 4 but not at level 5 (p = 0.2).
    At the time of follow-up, all patients were satisfied with the outcome of the arthroplasty. All hips were asymptomatic, and all patients had returned to unrestricted walking about the community. Plain radiographs demonstrated no component migration and no radiolucent lines.
    The mean bone-mineral-density values at the time of follow-up were greater on the untreated (control) side than on the treated side at all five levels (Fig. 5). The differences were significant at levels 2 and 3 (p = 0.008 and 0.04, respectively), and they approached significance at levels 1 and 4 (p = 0.08 and 0.06, respectively). The difference at level 5 lacked significance (p = 0.2).
    On the treated side, bone-mineral density decreased between the two time-points at all five levels (Fig. 6). This decrease was significant at each level (p £ 0.001). The largest absolute decreases in bone-mineral density occurred at levels 1 and 2 (75 and 76 mg/cc, respectively). These values represented relative declines of 26% and 33%, respectively. The absolute (and relative) magnitudes of the interval reductions in bone-mineral density ranged from 35 mg/cc (20%) to 76 mg/cc (33%). The magnitude of the interval reduction diminished with increasing distance cephalad to the acetabulum. However, even at level 5 (10 mm cephalad to the acetabular dome), the decrease (35 mg/cc [20%]) remained significant (p = 0.001). The percentage decrease at each level far exceeded the resolution limit of the quantitative computed tomography technique that had been established in the reproducibility analysis. Thus, the measured declines were considered to be valid.
    The subject cohort manifested considerable heterogeneity in terms of their baseline and follow-up bone-mineral-density values. However, despite the relatively large standard deviations at each level, the temporal bone-mineral-density trends were extremely consistent. Hence, the significance of the decline in bone-mineral density in the treated hip was unequivocally established.
    Evaluation of each of the tomographic images revealed a confluent pattern of bone-mineral-density distribution—that is, there was no evidence of focal bone resorption (osteolysis).
    On the untreated side, bone-mineral density increased slightly between the two time-points at all five levels. This increase was not significant at any level (p 0.07).
    The lack of significant alteration in bone-mineral density between the two time-points on the untreated side suggests that the untreated side served as a reliable internal control. Theoretically, the slight interval increase in bone-mineral density on the untreated side may represent an adaptive mechanical response to a general increase in weight-bearing activity afforded by a successful contralateral total hip arthroplasty34,35,39-41.
    The discrepancy between baseline bone-mineral density on the treated (diseased) side and that on the untreated (control) side (Fig. 4) is consistent with the fact that subchondral sclerosis is a fundamental characteristic of osteoarthritis. However, the interval reduction in bone-mineral density on the treated side (Fig. 6) cannot simply be attributed to a return to "normal" bone-mineral density because, at the time of follow-up, bone-mineral density on the treated side had not equilibrated with that of the contralateral (nondiseased) hip. Rather, the bone-mineral density on the treated side had decreased to a value that was lower than that on the contralateral (nondiseased) side (Fig. 5).
    The confluent pattern of osseous resorption on the treated side excludes osteolysis as an explanation for the reduction in bone-mineral density. Both varieties of osteolysis (cavitary and linear) produce discrete areas of bone resorption4,42,43.
    We propose a mechanical explanation for the observed trend of bone-mineral resorption on the treated side. Specifically, we believe that the decline in retroacetabular bone-mineral density reflects a remodeling response to decreased stress on the regional pelvic bone. The retroacetabular cancellous bone of the central part of the ilium is mechanically shielded because the metal-backed acetabular implant is stiffer than the host bone.
    When the acetabulum is resurfaced with a construct that is stiffer than the native subchondral plate, the elasticity mismatch focuses contact stress at the peripheral zones of the host-implant interface44-46. Hence, a greater portion of the weight-bearing load is transmitted to the peripheral cortex of the ilium, and, consequently, the cancellous bone of the central part of the ilium is subjected to less force than under ordinary circumstances (Fig. 7)8,47-51. Finite element analyses have suggested that press-fit fixation of hemispherical acetabular components further heightens rim stress and intensifies transmission of weight-bearing force to the peripheral cortex of the ilium as a result of generation of hoop stresses at the acetabular orifice and decreased host-implant contact area (gap formation) at the dome region32,33,52-54. The trabecular bone of the central part of the ilium is shielded as the press-fit implant transfers force to the cortical shell of the ilium (Fig. 7)32,33,55-59. Applications of computer-simulated remodeling theory predicted resultant attenuation of bone density behind the acetabular dome33-35. The findings of the present study provide clinical corroboration of the predictions generated by these finite element analyses and computer simulations.
    As with femoral stress-shielding, the most definitive clinical consequence of retroacetabular stress-shielding is its potential to compromise component revision. Supplemental screw fixation is often required to stabilize uncemented implants at the time of acetabular revision. The strength of dome-screw purchase depends on bone quality within the central part of the ilium. Thus, a decrease in bone density in the retroacetabular region decreases the fixation strength of revision acetabular components with dome screws.
    Retroacetabular stress-shielding may simply reflect stable osseous integration of the acetabular component and successful adaptation of local bone architecture to its new functional requirements. However, theoretical concern remains that periprosthetic stress-shielding could eventually lead to component-loosening if the stress-shielding proves to be progressive. As the regional bone-mineral density adjusts to its new mechanical environment, incremental attenuation of bone-mineral density could eventually reach a level at which the bone-implant interface becomes critically compromised. Although studies of proximal femoral stress-shielding by Engh et al. showed that a new steady state is characteristically achieved within the first two years1,6, other studies have suggested that this process may not be a self-limiting phenomenon13,60,61. Intermediate-term clinical follow-up of press-fit acetabular components continues to demonstrate favorably low loosening rates. However, we must bear in mind that alarmingly high rates of loosening of cemented acetabular implants did not become evident until long-term follow-up had been carried out. If acetabular stress-shielding proves to be a progressive phenomenon, then it could be a contributing factor to late failures of press-fit components. The long-term natural history of retroacetabular stress-shielding and its effect upon the longevity of implant fixation remain to be defined.
    It is uncertain whether this putative stress-shielding effect would be encountered to the same extent with other types of acetabular components. It is conceivable that more bone stock within the central part of the ilium could be preserved by selecting acetabular component design features and fixation methods that more effectively transmit forces to the central part of the ilium (rather than principally to the acetabular rim). Such features and methods have yet to be defined, but perhaps they are a worthy subject for future research. A component design that transmitted load more diffusely to the acetabulum-pelvis interface could conceivably promote a more symmetric pattern of bone ingrowth.
    Engh CA; McGovern TF; Bobyn JD; and Harris WH: A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 1009-20, 741009  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Hooten JP Jr; Zettl-Schaffer KF; Ghaffarpour M; McGovern TF; Macalino GE; and Zicat BA: Porous-coated total hip replacement. Clin Orthop,1994.298: 89-96, 29889  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Hughes SS; Furia JP; Smith P; and Pellegrini VD Jr: Atrophy of the proximal part of the femur after total hip arthroplasty without cement. A quantitative comparison of cobalt-chromium and titanium femoral stems with use of dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995.77: 231-9, 77231  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Jacobs JJ; Sumner DR; and Galante JO: Mechanisms of bone loss associated with total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am,1993.24: 583-90, 24583  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Kroger H; Miettinen H; Arnala I; Koski E; Rushton N; and Suomalainen O: Evaluation of periprosthetic bone using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: precision of the method and effect of operation on bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res,1996.11: 1526-30, 111526  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Bobyn JD; and Glassman AH: Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.,1987.69: 45-55, 6945  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Keaveny TM, and Bartel DL: Mechanical consequences of bone ingrowth in a hip prosthesis inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am.,1995.77: 911-23, 77911  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Markolf KL. Biomechanics of the hip. In: Morrey BF, editor. Reconstructive surgery of the joints. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p 15-21 
     
    McGovern TF; Engh CA; Zettl-Schaffer K; and Hooten JP Jr: Cortical bone density of the proximal femur following cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1994.306: 145-54, 306145  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Ritter MA, and Fechtman RW: Distal cortical hypertrophy following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,1988.3: 117-21, 3117  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen B, and Rushton N: Accuracy of DEXA measurement of bone mineral density after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1995.77: 479-83, 77479  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; O’Connor D; Jasty M; McGovern TF; Bobyn JD; and Harris WH: Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop,1992.285: 13-29, 28513  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Kilgus DJ; Shimaoka EE; Tipton JS; and Eberle RW: Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measurement of bone mineral density around porous-coated cementless femoral implants. Methods and preliminary results. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1993.75: 279-87, 75279  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Kiratli BJ; Heiner JP; McBeath AA; and Wilson MA: Determination of bone mineral density by dual x-ray absorptiometry in patients with uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res,1992.10: 836-44, 10836  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Trevisan C; Bigoni M; Cherubini R; Steiger P; Randelli G; and Ortolani S: Dual x-ray absorptiometry for the evaluation of bone density from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty: analysis protocols and reproducibility. Calcif Tissue Int,1993.53: 158-61, 53158  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA, and Bobyn JD: The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1988.231: 7-28, 2317  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Massin P; and Suthers KE: Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop,1990.257: 107-28, 257107  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Hooten JP Jr; Zettl-Schaffer KF; Ghaffarpour M; McGovern TF; and Bobyn JD: Evaluation of bone ingrowth in proximally and extensively porous-coated anatomic medullary locking prostheses retrieved at autopsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995.77: 903-10, 77903  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Friedman RJ; Black J; Galante JO; Jacobs JJ; and Skinner HB: Instructional Course Lecture. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Current concepts in orthopaedic biomaterials and implant fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1993.75: 1086-109, 751086  1993 
     
    Huiskes R; Weinans H; and Dalstra M: Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics,1989.12: 1255-67, 121255  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B.: The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 124-34, 274124  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R: Stress shielding and bone resorption in THA: clinical versus computer-simulation studies. Acta Orthop Belg,1993.59 Suppl 1: 118-29, 59 Suppl 1118  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R, and van Rietbergen B: Preclinical testing of total hip stems. The effects of coating placement. Clin Orthop,1995.319: 64-76, 31964  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Keaveny TM, and Bartel DL: Effects of porous coating and collar support on early load transfer for a cementless hip prosthesis. J Biomech.,1993.26: 1205-16, 261205  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Sumner DR, and Galante JO: Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 202-12, 274202  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Sychterz CJ, and Engh CA: The influence of clinical factors on periprosthetic bone remodeling. Clin Orthop,1996.322: 285-92, 322285  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Weinans H; Huiskes R; and Grootenboer HJ: Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling. J Orthop Res,1992.10: 845-53, 10845  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Weinans H; Huiskes R; and Grootenboer HJ: Effects of fit and bonding characteristics of femoral stems on adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech Eng,1994.116: 393-400, 116393  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen B, and Rushton N: Bone remodelling in the proximal femur after Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1995.77: 815-9, 77815  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH: Will stress shielding limit the longevity of cemented femoral components of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop.,1992.274: 120-3, 274120  1992  [PubMed]
     
    McCarthy CK; Steinberg GG; Agren M; Leahey D; Wyman E; and Baran DT: Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1991.73: 774-8, 73774  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R: Finite element analysis of acetabular reconstruction. Noncemented threaded cups. Acta Orthop Scand,1987.58: 620-5, 58620  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Levenston ME; Beaupre GS; Carter DR; and Schurman DJ: Skeletogenesis and bone remodeling theory applied to the peri-acetabular region. Trans Orthop Res Soc,1992.547, 547  1992 
     
    Beaupre GS; Orr TE; and Carter DR: An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodelingætheoretical development. J Orthop Res,1990.8: 651-61, 8651  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Fyhrie DP; and Whalen RT: Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech,1987.20: 785-94, 20785  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Dalstra M; Huiskes R; Odgaard A; and van Erning L: Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech,1993.26: 523-35, 26523  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Mirsky EC, and Einhorn TA: Current concepts review. Bone densitometry in orthopaedic practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1998.80: 1687-98, 801687  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Schneider R, and Math K: Bone density analysis, an update. Curr Opin Orthop,1994.5: 66-72, 566  1994 
     
    Bryan JM; Sumner DR; Hurwitz DE; Tompkins GS; Andriacchi TP; and Galante JO: Altered load history affects periprosthetic bone loss following cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res,1996.14: 762-8, 14762  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R; Weinans H; Grootenboer HJ; Dalstra M; Fudala B; and Slooff TJ: Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech,1987.20: 1135-50, 201135  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Wixson RL; Stulberg SD; Van Flandern GJ; and Puri L: Maintenance of proximal bone mass with an uncemented femoral stem analysis with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Arthroplasty,1997.12: 365-73, 12365  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH: Osteolysis and particle disease in hip replacement. A review. Acta Orthop Scand,1994.65: 113-23, 65113  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP; Jasty M; and Harris WH: Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 849-63, 74849  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Goodman SB, and Carter DR: Acetabular lucent lines and mechanical stress in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,1987.2: 219-24, 2219  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Morrey BF. Cemented acetabular components. In: Morrey BF, editor. Reconstructive surgery of the joints. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p 935-42 
     
    Vasu R; Carter DR; and Harris WH: Stress distributions in the acetabular regionæI. Before and after total joint replacement. J Biomech.,1982.15: 155-64, 15155  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Vasu R; and Harris WH: Stress distributions in the acetabular region—II. Effects of cement thickness and metal backing of the total hip acetabular component. J Biomech,1982.15: 165-70, 15165  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Vasu R; and Harris WH: Periacetabular stress distributions after joint replacement with subchondral bone retention. Acta Orthop Scand,1983.54: 29-35, 5429  1983  [PubMed]
     
    Jacob HA; Huggler AH; Dietschi C; and Schreiber A: Mechanical function of subchondral bone as experimentally determined on the acetabulum of the human pelvis. J Biomech,1976.9: 625-7, 9625  1976  [PubMed]
     
    Pedersen DR; Crowninshield RD; Brand RA; and Johnston RC: An axisymmetric model of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech,1982.15: 305-15, 15305  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Vasu R; Carter DR; and Harris WH: Evaluation of bone cement failure criteria with applications to the acetabular region. J Biomech Eng,1983.105: 332-7, 105332  1983  [PubMed]
     
    Kwong LM; O’Connor DO; Sedlacek RC; Krushell RJ; Maloney WJ; and Harris WH: A quantitative in vitro assessment of fit and screw fixation on the stability of a cementless hemispherical acetabular component. J Arthroplasty,1994.9: 163-70, 9163  1994  [PubMed]
     
    MacKenzie JR; Callaghan JJ; Pedersen DR; and Brown TD: Areas of contact and extent of gaps with implantation of oversized acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1994.298: 127-36, 298127  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP, and Harris WH: The Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation. Radiographic analysis of eighty-three primary hip replacements at a minimum of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 1130-9, 741130  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Bereiter H. Biomechanics of osseointegration. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 73-84 
     
    Morscher E, and Masar Z: Development and first experience with an uncemented press-fit cup. Clin Orthop,1988.232: 96-103, 23296  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Morscher EW: Current status of acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 172-93, 274172  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Morscher EW. Noncemented acetabular fixation in primary total hip replacement. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 143-79 
     
    Morscher EW. Rationale of the press-fit cup. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 190-9 
     
    Kiratli BJ; Checovich MM; McBeath AA; Wilson MA; and Heiner JP: Measurement of bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with the Wisconsin hip, an uncemented femoral stem. J Arthroplasty,1996.11: 184-93, 11184  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Nakamura K: Measurement of periprosthetic bone mineral density after cementless hip arthroplasty by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Orthop Sci,1996.1: 113-22, 1113  1996 
     

    Submit a comment

    Topics

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:Computed tomographic scout image demonstrating the orientation of the five axial imaging levels (horizontal solid lines) at which bone-mineral density was quantified within the ilium. The interteardrop line (dashed line) was used as a reference to confirm (and reproduce) appropriate pelvic orientation in the coronal plane.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Schematic representation of the region of interest. Bone-mineral density was quantified at five separate levels within this region. Level 1, which refers to the most caudal plane, was set to be tangential to the most cephalad point of the acetabular implant. The levels (1 through 5) within the region of interest progress in a caudal-to-cephalad sequence.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:Computed tomographic image through the retroacetabular region of a left ilium. Note the position of the circular cross section of the region of interest (labeled "1") within the central part of the ilium. The density phantom (labeled "ABC") was positioned anterior to the patient.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 4:Comparison of the mean baseline bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean baseline bone-mineral density on the untreated side.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 5:Comparison of the mean follow-up bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean follow-up bone-mineral density on the untreated side.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 6:Comparison of the mean baseline bone-mineral density (expressed as milligrams per cubic centimeter) on the treated side with the mean follow-up bone-mineral density on the treated side.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 7:Schematic representation of the redistribution of stress away from the trabecular bone of the central part of the ilium to the peripheral cortex of the ilium by the acetabular implant. We hypothesize that regional pelvic bone-mineral density remodels in response to this pattern of stress redistribution. (Reprinted, with modification, from: Engh CA, Zettl-Schaffer KF, Kukita Y, Sweet D, Jasty M, Bragdon C: Histological and radiographic assessment of well functioning porous-coated acetabular components. A human postmortem retrieval study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:816.)
    Engh CA; McGovern TF; Bobyn JD; and Harris WH: A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 1009-20, 741009  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Hooten JP Jr; Zettl-Schaffer KF; Ghaffarpour M; McGovern TF; Macalino GE; and Zicat BA: Porous-coated total hip replacement. Clin Orthop,1994.298: 89-96, 29889  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Hughes SS; Furia JP; Smith P; and Pellegrini VD Jr: Atrophy of the proximal part of the femur after total hip arthroplasty without cement. A quantitative comparison of cobalt-chromium and titanium femoral stems with use of dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995.77: 231-9, 77231  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Jacobs JJ; Sumner DR; and Galante JO: Mechanisms of bone loss associated with total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am,1993.24: 583-90, 24583  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Kroger H; Miettinen H; Arnala I; Koski E; Rushton N; and Suomalainen O: Evaluation of periprosthetic bone using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: precision of the method and effect of operation on bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res,1996.11: 1526-30, 111526  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Bobyn JD; and Glassman AH: Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.,1987.69: 45-55, 6945  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Keaveny TM, and Bartel DL: Mechanical consequences of bone ingrowth in a hip prosthesis inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am.,1995.77: 911-23, 77911  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Markolf KL. Biomechanics of the hip. In: Morrey BF, editor. Reconstructive surgery of the joints. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p 15-21 
     
    McGovern TF; Engh CA; Zettl-Schaffer K; and Hooten JP Jr: Cortical bone density of the proximal femur following cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1994.306: 145-54, 306145  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Ritter MA, and Fechtman RW: Distal cortical hypertrophy following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,1988.3: 117-21, 3117  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen B, and Rushton N: Accuracy of DEXA measurement of bone mineral density after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1995.77: 479-83, 77479  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; O’Connor D; Jasty M; McGovern TF; Bobyn JD; and Harris WH: Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop,1992.285: 13-29, 28513  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Kilgus DJ; Shimaoka EE; Tipton JS; and Eberle RW: Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measurement of bone mineral density around porous-coated cementless femoral implants. Methods and preliminary results. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1993.75: 279-87, 75279  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Kiratli BJ; Heiner JP; McBeath AA; and Wilson MA: Determination of bone mineral density by dual x-ray absorptiometry in patients with uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res,1992.10: 836-44, 10836  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Trevisan C; Bigoni M; Cherubini R; Steiger P; Randelli G; and Ortolani S: Dual x-ray absorptiometry for the evaluation of bone density from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty: analysis protocols and reproducibility. Calcif Tissue Int,1993.53: 158-61, 53158  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA, and Bobyn JD: The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1988.231: 7-28, 2317  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Massin P; and Suthers KE: Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop,1990.257: 107-28, 257107  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Engh CA; Hooten JP Jr; Zettl-Schaffer KF; Ghaffarpour M; McGovern TF; and Bobyn JD: Evaluation of bone ingrowth in proximally and extensively porous-coated anatomic medullary locking prostheses retrieved at autopsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995.77: 903-10, 77903  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Friedman RJ; Black J; Galante JO; Jacobs JJ; and Skinner HB: Instructional Course Lecture. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Current concepts in orthopaedic biomaterials and implant fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1993.75: 1086-109, 751086  1993 
     
    Huiskes R; Weinans H; and Dalstra M: Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics,1989.12: 1255-67, 121255  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B.: The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 124-34, 274124  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R: Stress shielding and bone resorption in THA: clinical versus computer-simulation studies. Acta Orthop Belg,1993.59 Suppl 1: 118-29, 59 Suppl 1118  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R, and van Rietbergen B: Preclinical testing of total hip stems. The effects of coating placement. Clin Orthop,1995.319: 64-76, 31964  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Keaveny TM, and Bartel DL: Effects of porous coating and collar support on early load transfer for a cementless hip prosthesis. J Biomech.,1993.26: 1205-16, 261205  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Sumner DR, and Galante JO: Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 202-12, 274202  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Sychterz CJ, and Engh CA: The influence of clinical factors on periprosthetic bone remodeling. Clin Orthop,1996.322: 285-92, 322285  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Weinans H; Huiskes R; and Grootenboer HJ: Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling. J Orthop Res,1992.10: 845-53, 10845  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Weinans H; Huiskes R; and Grootenboer HJ: Effects of fit and bonding characteristics of femoral stems on adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech Eng,1994.116: 393-400, 116393  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen B, and Rushton N: Bone remodelling in the proximal femur after Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1995.77: 815-9, 77815  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH: Will stress shielding limit the longevity of cemented femoral components of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop.,1992.274: 120-3, 274120  1992  [PubMed]
     
    McCarthy CK; Steinberg GG; Agren M; Leahey D; Wyman E; and Baran DT: Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1991.73: 774-8, 73774  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R: Finite element analysis of acetabular reconstruction. Noncemented threaded cups. Acta Orthop Scand,1987.58: 620-5, 58620  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Levenston ME; Beaupre GS; Carter DR; and Schurman DJ: Skeletogenesis and bone remodeling theory applied to the peri-acetabular region. Trans Orthop Res Soc,1992.547, 547  1992 
     
    Beaupre GS; Orr TE; and Carter DR: An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodelingætheoretical development. J Orthop Res,1990.8: 651-61, 8651  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Fyhrie DP; and Whalen RT: Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech,1987.20: 785-94, 20785  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Dalstra M; Huiskes R; Odgaard A; and van Erning L: Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech,1993.26: 523-35, 26523  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Mirsky EC, and Einhorn TA: Current concepts review. Bone densitometry in orthopaedic practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1998.80: 1687-98, 801687  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Schneider R, and Math K: Bone density analysis, an update. Curr Opin Orthop,1994.5: 66-72, 566  1994 
     
    Bryan JM; Sumner DR; Hurwitz DE; Tompkins GS; Andriacchi TP; and Galante JO: Altered load history affects periprosthetic bone loss following cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res,1996.14: 762-8, 14762  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Huiskes R; Weinans H; Grootenboer HJ; Dalstra M; Fudala B; and Slooff TJ: Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech,1987.20: 1135-50, 201135  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Wixson RL; Stulberg SD; Van Flandern GJ; and Puri L: Maintenance of proximal bone mass with an uncemented femoral stem analysis with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Arthroplasty,1997.12: 365-73, 12365  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH: Osteolysis and particle disease in hip replacement. A review. Acta Orthop Scand,1994.65: 113-23, 65113  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP; Jasty M; and Harris WH: Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 849-63, 74849  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Goodman SB, and Carter DR: Acetabular lucent lines and mechanical stress in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,1987.2: 219-24, 2219  1987  [PubMed]
     
    Morrey BF. Cemented acetabular components. In: Morrey BF, editor. Reconstructive surgery of the joints. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p 935-42 
     
    Vasu R; Carter DR; and Harris WH: Stress distributions in the acetabular regionæI. Before and after total joint replacement. J Biomech.,1982.15: 155-64, 15155  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Vasu R; and Harris WH: Stress distributions in the acetabular region—II. Effects of cement thickness and metal backing of the total hip acetabular component. J Biomech,1982.15: 165-70, 15165  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Carter DR; Vasu R; and Harris WH: Periacetabular stress distributions after joint replacement with subchondral bone retention. Acta Orthop Scand,1983.54: 29-35, 5429  1983  [PubMed]
     
    Jacob HA; Huggler AH; Dietschi C; and Schreiber A: Mechanical function of subchondral bone as experimentally determined on the acetabulum of the human pelvis. J Biomech,1976.9: 625-7, 9625  1976  [PubMed]
     
    Pedersen DR; Crowninshield RD; Brand RA; and Johnston RC: An axisymmetric model of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech,1982.15: 305-15, 15305  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Vasu R; Carter DR; and Harris WH: Evaluation of bone cement failure criteria with applications to the acetabular region. J Biomech Eng,1983.105: 332-7, 105332  1983  [PubMed]
     
    Kwong LM; O’Connor DO; Sedlacek RC; Krushell RJ; Maloney WJ; and Harris WH: A quantitative in vitro assessment of fit and screw fixation on the stability of a cementless hemispherical acetabular component. J Arthroplasty,1994.9: 163-70, 9163  1994  [PubMed]
     
    MacKenzie JR; Callaghan JJ; Pedersen DR; and Brown TD: Areas of contact and extent of gaps with implantation of oversized acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1994.298: 127-36, 298127  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP, and Harris WH: The Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation. Radiographic analysis of eighty-three primary hip replacements at a minimum of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1992.74: 1130-9, 741130  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Bereiter H. Biomechanics of osseointegration. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 73-84 
     
    Morscher E, and Masar Z: Development and first experience with an uncemented press-fit cup. Clin Orthop,1988.232: 96-103, 23296  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Morscher EW: Current status of acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop,1992.274: 172-93, 274172  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Morscher EW. Noncemented acetabular fixation in primary total hip replacement. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 143-79 
     
    Morscher EW. Rationale of the press-fit cup. In: Morscher EW, editor. Endoprosthetics. New York: Springer; 1995. p 190-9 
     
    Kiratli BJ; Checovich MM; McBeath AA; Wilson MA; and Heiner JP: Measurement of bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with the Wisconsin hip, an uncemented femoral stem. J Arthroplasty,1996.11: 184-93, 11184  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Nakamura K: Measurement of periprosthetic bone mineral density after cementless hip arthroplasty by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Orthop Sci,1996.1: 113-22, 1113  1996 
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    Virginia - Charleston Area Medical Center