Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Body composition changes in the immediate peri-operative period following total joint arthroplasty

Open Access
|Sep 2022

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Comparison of means of change in dry lean mass (DLM) and procedure from the pre-operative scan on the day of surgery to postoperative day 0 (POD0) and day 1 (POD1) for total hip and knee arthroplasty. *Denotes standard deviation
Comparison of means of change in dry lean mass (DLM) and procedure from the pre-operative scan on the day of surgery to postoperative day 0 (POD0) and day 1 (POD1) for total hip and knee arthroplasty. *Denotes standard deviation

Figure 2

Comparison of means of change in dry lean mass (DLM) and scanning position from the pre-operative scan on the day of surgery to post-operative day 0 (POD0) and day 1 (POD1). *Denotes standard deviation
Comparison of means of change in dry lean mass (DLM) and scanning position from the pre-operative scan on the day of surgery to post-operative day 0 (POD0) and day 1 (POD1). *Denotes standard deviation

The results of the paired t-test between changes in dry lean mass (DLM) and lean body mass (LBM) at different peri-operative time points_ Separate analyses by positioning (supine and seated – left side; supine – right side) are included_

Supine and Seated N = 67Mean (SD)95% CL SDtPSupine N = 47Mean (SD)95% CL SDtP
LBM (kg)DOS to POD01.67 (2.35)2.01, 2.835.81<0.0001DOS to POD01.30 (2.14)1.78, 2.684.21<0.001
DOS to POD11.82 (2.55)2.18, 3.085.82<0.0001DOS to POD11.16 (2.19)1.82, 2.743.67<0.001
POD0 to POD10.15 (2.42)2.06, 2.910.510.614POD0 to POD1-0.14 (2.51)2.08, 3.14-0.390.701
DLM (kg)DOS to POD00.45 (0.67)0.58, 0.815.53<0.0001DOS to POD00.36 (0.610.51, 0.764.08<0.001
DOS to POD10.49 (0.72)0.62, 0.875.53<0.0001DOS to POD10.32 (0.64)0.53, 0.793.41<0.001
POD0 to POD10.03 (0.70)0.59, 0.840.380.705POD0 to POD1-0.04 (0.71)0.59, 0.89-0.420.679

The three most utilized metallic knee prostheses used during the study period_ Note, femoral (F) and tibial (T) components were matched in all patients_

Rank (N)Implant Brand and ModelMean Size
1 (13)MicroPort EvolutionF: 5.2; T: 5.2
2 (11)DePuy Synthes AttuneF: 5.7; T: 5.0
3 (10)Stryker TriathlonF: 5.4; T: 4.9

Demography of patients and select pre-operative markers_

Variable (units)Average (SD)
Age (years)62.64 (10.28)
Male: Female (%)50.8%: 49.2%
TKA: THA (%)50.8%: 49.2%
Baseline BMI (kg/m2)34.84 (7.56)
Baseline Weight (kg)98.22 (25.81)
Baseline LBM (kg)58.07 (14.41)
Baseline DLM (kg)15.67 (3.67)

The three most commonly implanted metallic acetabular cups_

Rank (N)Implant Brand and ModelMean Size (mm)
1 (12)Zimmer-Biomet G755.2
2 (9)DePuy Synthes Pinnacle54.7
3 (8)MicroPort Proctyl Prime55.0

The three most commonly implanted metallic femoral stem prostheses_

Rank (N)Implant Brand and ModelMean Size
1 (10)DePuy Synthes Actis5.9
2 (8)MicroPort Gladiator4.6
3 (6)Zimmer-Biomet Echo12.2
Language: English
Page range: 39 - 44
Submitted on: May 4, 2022
Accepted on: Aug 26, 2022
Published on: Sep 9, 2022
Published by: University of Oslo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year

© 2022 Michael C. Marinier, Ayobami S. Ogunsola, Jacob M. Elkins, published by University of Oslo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.