OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between muscle mass and functional recovery in women with hip fracture. DESIGN: A total of 200 of 230 women with hip fracture admitted consecutively to a rehabilitation hospital were investigated in this survey study. Lean mass (LM) was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, 23.1 +/- 7.9 (mean +/- SD) days after fracture occurrence. Appendicular LM (aLM) was calculated as the sum of LM in arms and legs. Because metal implants (prostheses and nails) affect the regional assessment of body composition, aLM was corrected by substituting LM in the unfractured leg for LM in the fractured leg: corrected aLM = (LM in unfractured leg x 2) + LM in arms. We used two approaches to adjust corrected aLM for body size: corrected aLM divided by height squared (aLM/ht), and corrected aLM adjusted for height and fat mass (residuals). Functional recovery was assessed by using Barthel index scores. RESULTS: After adjustment for body size, corrected aLM was neither significantly correlated with Barthel index scores nor with the change in Barthel index scores after rehabilitation. Also, after stratification for quintiles of aLM/ht and residuals, no significant differences in functional recovery were found among the five groups. CONCLUSIONS: LM assessed after hip fracture is not associated with functional outcome in women.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between muscle mass and functional recovery in women with hip fracture. DESIGN: A total of 200 of 230 women with hip fracture admitted consecutively to a rehabilitation hospital were investigated in this survey study. Lean mass (LM) was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, 23.1 +/- 7.9 (mean +/- SD) days after fracture occurrence. Appendicular LM (aLM) was calculated as the sum of LM in arms and legs. Because metal implants (prostheses and nails) affect the regional assessment of body composition, aLM was corrected by substituting LM in the unfractured leg for LM in the fractured leg: corrected aLM = (LM in unfractured leg x 2) + LM in arms. We used two approaches to adjust corrected aLM for body size: corrected aLM divided by height squared (aLM/ht), and corrected aLM adjusted for height and fat mass (residuals). Functional recovery was assessed by using Barthel index scores. RESULTS: After adjustment for body size, corrected aLM was neither significantly correlated with Barthel index scores nor with the change in Barthel index scores after rehabilitation. Also, after stratification for quintiles of aLM/ht and residuals, no significant differences in functional recovery were found among the five groups. CONCLUSIONS: LM assessed after hip fracture is not associated with functional outcome in women.
Authors: Christopher Richard D'Adamo; William G Hawkes; Ram Ron Miller; Mark Jones; Marc Hochberg; Janet Yu-Yahiro; J Richard Hebel; Jay Magaziner Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: P Piscitelli; G Iolascon; F Gimigliano; M Muratore; P Camboa; O Borgia; B Forcina; F Fitto; V Robaud; G Termini; G B Rini; E Gianicolo; A Faino; M Rossini; S Adami; A Angeli; A Distante; S Gatto; R Gimigliano; G Guida Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-10-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Prisco Piscitelli; Giovanni Iolascon; Francesca Gimigliano; Alessandra Gimigliano; Alessandra Marinelli; Rosalba Di Nuzzo; Giuseppe Colì; Lucia Di Paola; Elena Gianicolo; Giovanna Chitano; Vincenzo Sbenaglia; Raffaella Gismondi; Marco Greco; Daniele Camilli; Maria Grazia Modena; Maria Luisa Brandi; Alessandro Distante; Alexandru Cozma Journal: Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab Date: 2008-01
Authors: S J Mitchell; S N Hilmer; C M J Kirkpatrick; R D Hansen; D A Williamson; N A Singh; T P Finnegan; B J Allen; T H Diamond; A D Diwan; B D Lloyd; E U R Smith; M A Fiatarone Singh Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Denise L Orwig; Jay Magaziner; Roger A Fielding; Hao Zhu; Ellen F Binder; Peggy M Cawthon; Shalender Bhasin; Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo; Todd Manini; Sheena Patel; Michelle Shardell; Thomas G Travison Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ram R Miller; Michelle D Shardell; Gregory E Hicks; Anne R Cappola; William G Hawkes; Janet A Yu-Yahiro; Jay Magaziner Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: P Piscitelli; F Gimigliano; S Gatto; A Marinelli; A Gimigliano; P Marinelli; G Chitano; M Greco; L Di Paola; E Sbenaglia; M Benvenuto; M Muratore; E Quarta; F Calcagnile; G Colì; O Borgia; B Forcina; F Fitto; A Giordano; A Distante; M Rossini; A Angeli; A Migliore; G Guglielmi; G Guida; M L Brandi; R Gimigliano; G Iolascon Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 4.507