Literature DB >> 14760516

Combination of bone mineral density and upper femur geometry improves the prediction of hip fracture.

Pasi Pulkkinen1, Juha Partanen, Pekka Jalovaara, Timo Jämsä.   

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the main determinant of the clinical evaluation of hip fracture risk. However, it has been shown that BMD is not the only predictive factor for hip fracture, but that bone geometry is also important. We studied whether the combination of bone geometry and BMD could further improve the determination of hip fracture risk and fracture type. Seventy-four postmenopausal females (mean age 74 years) with a non-pathologic cervical or trochanteric hip fracture without previous hip fracture or hip surgery constituted the study group. Forty-nine had a cervical fracture (mean age 73 years) and 25 had a trochanteric fracture (mean age 76 years). The control group consisted of 40 age-matched females (mean age 74 years). The geometrical parameters were defined from plain anteroposterior radiographs, and the potential sources of inaccuracy were eliminated as far as possible by using a standardized patient position and calibrated dimension measurements with digital image analysis. BMD was measured at the femoral neck (FEBMD), Ward's triangle (WABMD), and the trochanter (TRBMD). Stepwise linear regression analysis showed that the best predictor of hip fracture was the combination of medial calcar femoral cortex width (CFC), TRBMD, neck/shaft angle (NSA), and WABMD ( r=0.72, r(2)=0.52, P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for this model was 0.93, while the area under ROC for TRBMD alone was 0.81. At a specificity of 80%, sensitivity improved from 52.5% to 92.5% with this combination compared with TRBMD alone. The combined predictors of cervical and trochanteric fracture differed, being NSA, CFC, TRBMD, and WABMD for cervical and TRBMD and femoral shaft cortical thickness for trochanteric fracture. In addition, we found a statistically significant correlation between FEBMD and femoral shaft and femoral neck cortex width ( r=0.40, P<0.01 and r=0.30, P<0.01, respectively). The results confirm that the combination of BMD and radiological measures of upper femur geometry improve the assessment of the risk of hip fracture and fracture type compared to BMD alone, and that bone geometry plays an important role in the evaluation of bone strength.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14760516     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1556-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  30 in total

1.  Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women.

Authors:  S Gnudi; C Ripamonti; G Gualtieri; N Malavolta
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Multicenter Project for Research in Osteoporosis.

Authors:  C G Alonso; M D Curiel; F H Carranza; R P Cano; A D Peréz
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  A clinical prediction rule to identify premenopausal women with low bone mass.

Authors:  G A Hawker; S A Jamal; R Ridout; C Chase
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Comparison between metacarpal bone measurements by computarized radiogrammetry and total body DEXA in normal and osteoporotic women.

Authors:  H Rico; M Revilla; L F Villa; J F Martin-Santos; J L Cardenas; E Fraile
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 5.  Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 2. Redefining Wolff's law: the remodeling problem.

Authors:  H M Frost
Journal:  Anat Rec       Date:  1990-04

6.  On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density.

Authors:  J C Rice; S C Cowin; J A Bowman
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 7.  Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial.

Authors:  C H Turner; D B Burr
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The mechanical characteristics of the long bones of the lower extremity in torsional loading.

Authors:  M Martens; R van Audekercke; P de Meester; J C Mulier
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Fall direction, bone mineral density, and function: risk factors for hip fracture in frail nursing home elderly.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; E R Myers; D P Kiel; R A Parker; W C Hayes; N M Resnick
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  52 in total

Review 1.  Bone geometry and skeletal fragility.

Authors:  Mary L Bouxsein; David Karasik
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Age-related factors affecting the postyield energy dissipation of human cortical bone.

Authors:  Jeffry S Nyman; Anuradha Roy; Jerrod H Tyler; Rae L Acuna; Heather J Gayle; Xiaodu Wang
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Genetic determination and correlation of body weight and body mass index (BMI) and cross-sectional geometric parameters of the femoral neck.

Authors:  Hong Xu; Ji-Rong Long; Yan-Jun Yang; Fei-Yan Deng; Hong-Wen Deng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-02       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Establishment of peak bone mineral density in Southern Chinese males and its comparisons with other males from different regions of China.

Authors:  Li-Jun Tan; Shu-Feng Lei; Xiang-Ding Chen; Man-Yuan Liu; Yan-Fang Guo; Hong Xu; Xiao Sun; Cheng Jiang; Su-Mei Xiao; Jing-Jing Guo; Yan-Jun Yang; Fei-Yan Deng; Yan-Bo Wang; Yuan-Neng Li; Xue-Zhen Zhu; Hong-Wen Deng
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2007-02-26       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Differences in femoral neck geometry associated with age and ethnicity.

Authors:  K M Kim; J K Brown; K J Kim; H S Choi; H N Kim; Y Rhee; S-K Lim
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Effect of monthly ibandronate on hip structural geometry in men with low bone density.

Authors:  H K Genant; E M Lewiecki; T Fuerst; M Fries
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Bone quality: the determinants of bone strength and fragility.

Authors:  Hélder Fonseca; Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves; Hans-Joachim Appell Coriolano; José Alberto Duarte
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  Evaluation of a simplified hip structure analysis method for the prediction of incident hip fracture events.

Authors:  B C C Khoo; J R Lewis; K Brown; R L Prince
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  BMD T-score discriminates trochanteric fractures from unfractured controls, whereas geometry discriminates cervical fracture cases from unfractured controls of similar BMD.

Authors:  P Pulkkinen; J Partanen; P Jalovaara; T Jämsä
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Proximal femoral structure and the prediction of hip fracture in men: a large prospective study using QCT.

Authors:  Dennis M Black; Mary L Bouxsein; Lynn M Marshall; Steven R Cummings; Thomas F Lang; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud; Carrie M Nielson; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 6.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.