Literature DB >> 17638578

Femoral neck BMD is a strong predictor of hip fracture susceptibility in elderly men and women because it detects cortical bone instability: the Rotterdam Study.

Fernando Rivadeneira1, M Carola Zillikens, Chris Edh De Laet, Albert Hofman, André G Uitterlinden, Thomas J Beck, Huibert Ap Pols.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We studied HSA measurements in relation to hip fracture risk in 4,806 individuals (2,740 women). Hip fractures (n = 147) occurred at the same absolute levels of bone instability in both sexes. Cortical instability (propensity of thinner cortices in wide diameters to buckle) explains why hip fracture risk at different BMD levels is the same across sexes.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the sexual dimorphism of bone, hip fracture risk is very similar in men and women at the same absolute BMD. We aimed to elucidate the main structural properties of bone that underlie the measured BMD and that ultimately determines the risk of hip fracture in elderly men and women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is part of the Rotterdam Study (a large prospective population-based cohort) and included 147 incident hip fracture cases in 4,806 participants with DXA-derived hip structural analysis (mean follow-up, 8.6 yr). Indices compared in relation to fracture included neck width, cortical thickness, section modulus (an index of bending strength), and buckling ratio (an index of cortical bone instability). We used a mathematical model to calculate the hip fracture distribution by femoral neck BMD, BMC, bone area, and hip structure analysis (HSA) parameters (cortical thickness, section modulus narrow neck width, and buckling ratio) and compared it with prospective data from the Rotterdam Study.
RESULTS: In the prospective data, hip fracture cases in both sexes had lower BMD, thinner cortices, greater bone width, lower strength, and higher instability at baseline. In fractured individuals, men had an average BMD that was 0.09 g/cm(2) higher than women (p < 0.00001), whereas no significant difference in buckling ratios was seen. Modeled fracture distribution by BMD and buckling ratio levels were in concordance to the prospective data and showed that hip fractures seem to occur at the same absolute levels of bone instability (buckling ratio) in both men and women. No significant differences were observed between the areas under the ROC curves of BMD (0.8146 in women and 0.8048 in men) and the buckling ratio (0.8161 in women and 0.7759 in men).
CONCLUSIONS: The buckling ratio (an index of bone instability) portrays in both sexes the critical balance between cortical thickness and bone width. Our findings suggest that extreme thinning of cortices in expanded bones plays a key role on local susceptibility to fracture. Even though the buckling ratio does not offer additional predictive value, these findings improve our understanding of why low BMD is a good predictor of fragility fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17638578     DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.070712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  82 in total

Review 1.  Functional interactions among morphologic and tissue quality traits define bone quality.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Age-specific reference values of hip geometric indices from a representative sample of the Japanese female population: Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Study.

Authors:  M Iki; N DongMei; J Tamaki; Y Sato; S Kagamimori; Y Kagawa; H Yoneshima
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  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

4.  Low bone mineral density at femoral neck is a predictor of increased mortality in elderly Japanese women.

Authors:  T Suzuki; H Yoshida
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Prediction of hip and other osteoporotic fractures from hip geometry in a large clinical cohort.

Authors:  W D Leslie; P S Pahlavan; J F Tsang; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Does obesity really make the femur stronger? BMD, geometry, and fracture incidence in the women's health initiative-observational study.

Authors:  Thomas J Beck; Moira A Petit; Guanglin Wu; Meryl S LeBoff; Jane A Cauley; Zhao Chen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Hormone therapy improves femur geometry among ethnically diverse postmenopausal participants in the Women's Health Initiative hormone intervention trials.

Authors:  Zhao Chen; Thomas J Beck; Jane A Cauley; Cora E Lewis; Andrea LaCroix; Tamsen Bassford; Guanglin Wu; Duane Sherrill; Scott Going
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Using Radon transform of standard radiographs of the hip to differentiate between post-menopausal women with and without fracture of the proximal femur.

Authors:  H F Boehm; J Lutz; M Körner; W Mutschler; M Reiser; K-J Pfeifer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Fourier transform infrared imaging microspectroscopy and tissue-level mechanical testing reveal intraspecies variation in mouse bone mineral and matrix composition.

Authors:  Hayden-William Courtland; Philip Nasser; Andrew B Goldstone; Lyudmila Spevak; Adele L Boskey; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  Difference in the trajectory of change in bone geometry as measured by hip structural analysis in the narrow neck, intertrochanteric region, and femoral shaft between men and women following hip fracture.

Authors:  Alan M Rathbun; Michelle Shardell; Denise Orwig; J Richard Hebel; Gregory E Hicks; Thomas J Beck; Jay Magaziner; Marc C Hochberg
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.398

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.