ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2025
Changes in Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density Following Arthroplasty: An In-Depth Review and Current Perspectives.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational Progress and Clinical Challenges in Bioengineered Bone and Joint Repair.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Author response to Letter to the Editor by Yang et al. regarding Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry in total hip arthroplasty: validation and clinical translation.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Therapy: Current Advances, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewArthroplasty (e.g., TKA, UKA, THA) is a gold-standard treatment for end-stage joint diseases, yet it often leads to periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) loss, increasing risks of implant loosening and fractures. This review aims to (1) evaluate current methods for measuring periprosthetic BMD, (2) analyze factors contributing to BMD reduction, and (3) discuss pharmacological interventions to mitigate bone loss, thereby improving postoperative outcomes. RECENT
findingsRecent studies highlight three primary BMD assessment tools: DEXA (widely used but limited by artifact interference), QCT (3D precision but higher cost/radiation), and HRpQCT (high-resolution yet restricted to peripheral sites). Key contributors to BMD loss include stress shielding, surgical technique, patient-specific factors (e.g., age, osteoporosis), and postoperative management gaps. Pharmacological agents like teriparatide (anabolic), denosumab (anti-resorptive), and TCM (e.g., Epimedium-derived compounds) show efficacy in preserving periprosthetic BMD. Periprosthetic BMD loss remains a critical challenge post-arthroplasty. While current monitoring tools and pharmacological strategies offer promising solutions, limitations in accessibility and standardization persist. Future research should focus on personalized BMD management protocols, cost-effective monitoring technologies, and long-term outcomes of combined therapies to optimize implant longevity and patient quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576727What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.