Literature DB >> 17891327

Experimental hip fracture load can be predicted from plain radiography by combined analysis of trabecular bone structure and bone geometry.

P Pulkkinen1, T Jämsä, E-M Lochmüller, V Kuhn, M T Nieminen, F Eckstein.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Computerized analysis of the trabecular structure was used to test whether femur failure load can be estimated from radiographs. The study showed that combined analysis of trabecular bone structure and geometry predicts in vitro failure load with similar accuracy as DXA.
INTRODUCTION: Since conventional radiography is widely available with low imaging cost, it is of considerable interest to discover how well bone mechanical competence can be determined using this technology. We tested the hypothesis that the mechanical strength of the femur can be estimated by the combined analysis of the bone trabecular structure and geometry.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 62 cadaver femurs (34 females, 28 males). After radiography and DXA, femora were mechanically tested in side impact configuration. Fracture patterns were classified as being cervical or trochanteric. Computerized image analysis was applied to obtain structure-related trabecular parameters (trabecular bone area, Euler number, homogeneity index, and trabecular main orientation), and set of geometrical variables (neck-shaft angle, medial calcar and femoral shaft cortex thicknesses, and femoral neck axis length). Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify the variables that best explain variation in BMD and failure load between subjects.
RESULTS: In cervical fracture cases, trabecular bone area and femoral neck axis length explained 64% of the variability in failure loads, while femoral neck BMD also explained 64%. In trochanteric fracture cases, Euler number and femoral cortex thickness explained 66% of the variability in failure load, while trochanteric BMD explained 72%.
CONCLUSIONS: Structural parameters of trabecular bone and bone geometry predict in vitro failure loads of the proximal femur with similar accuracy as DXA, when using appropriate image analysis technology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17891327     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-007-0479-9

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


  61 in total

1.  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

2.  Texture analysis of X-ray radiographs of iliac bone is correlated with bone micro-CT.

Authors:  P Guggenbuhl; F Bodic; L Hamel; M F Baslé; D Chappard
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-01-14       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Estimation of fractal dimension in radiographs.

Authors:  J F Veenland; J L Grashius; F van der Meer; A L Beckers; E S Gelsema
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Evaluation of cancellous structure in the distal radius using spectral analysis.

Authors:  C A Wigderowitz; E W Abel; D I Rowley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Trabecular bone microarchitecture, bone mineral density, and vertebral fractures in male osteoporosis.

Authors:  E Legrand; D Chappard; C Pascaretti; M Duquenne; S Krebs; V Rohmer; M F Basle; M Audran
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Lung segmentation in digital radiographs.

Authors:  E Pietka
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Unraveling the role of structure and density in determining vertebral bone strength.

Authors:  J F Veenland; T M Link; W Konermann; N Meier; J L Grashuis; E S Gelsema
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Gender differences in trabecular bone architecture of the distal radius assessed with magnetic resonance imaging and implications for mechanical competence.

Authors:  Martin Hudelmaier; A Kollstedt; E M Lochmüller; V Kuhn; F Eckstein; T M Link
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Differences in proximal femur geometry distinguish vertebral from femoral neck fractures in osteoporotic women.

Authors:  S Gnudi; N Malavolta; D Testi; M Viceconti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.039

View more
  16 in total

1.  Effects of hip abductor muscle forces and knee boundary conditions on femoral neck stresses during simulated falls.

Authors:  W J Choi; P A Cripton; S N Robinovitch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Can Hip Fracture Prediction in Women be Estimated beyond Bone Mineral Density Measurement Alone?

Authors:  Piet Geusens; Tineke van Geel; Joop van den Bergh
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.346

Review 3.  Sideways fall-induced impact force and its effect on hip fracture risk: a review.

Authors:  M Nasiri Sarvi; Y Luo
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  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

5.  An integration of genome-wide association study and gene expression profiling to prioritize the discovery of novel susceptibility Loci for osteoporosis-related traits.

Authors:  Yi-Hsiang Hsu; M Carola Zillikens; Scott G Wilson; Charles R Farber; Serkalem Demissie; Nicole Soranzo; Estelle N Bianchi; Elin Grundberg; Liming Liang; J Brent Richards; Karol Estrada; Yanhua Zhou; Atila van Nas; Miriam F Moffatt; Guangju Zhai; Albert Hofman; Joyce B van Meurs; Huibert A P Pols; Roger I Price; Olle Nilsson; Tomi Pastinen; L Adrienne Cupples; Aldons J Lusis; Eric E Schadt; Serge Ferrari; André G Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Timothy D Spector; David Karasik; Douglas P Kiel
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 5.917

6.  Radiographic trabecular 2D and 3D parameters of proximal femoral bone cores correlate with each other and with yield stress.

Authors:  D Steines; S-W Liew; C Arnaud; R Vargas-Voracek; A Nazarian; R Müller; B Snyder; P Hess; P Lang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing--an international consensus statement (part I).

Authors:  S N Robinovitch; S L Evans; J Minns; A C Laing; P Kannus; P A Cripton; S Derler; S J Birge; D Plant; I D Cameron; D P Kiel; J Howland; K Khan; J B Lauritzen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Fracture risk predictions based on statistical shape and density modeling of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Todd L Bredbenner; Robert L Mason; Lorena M Havill; Eric S Orwoll; Daniel P Nicolella
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Effects of Hip Geometry on Fracture Patterns of Proximal Femur.

Authors:  Seyyed Morteza Kazemi; Mohamad Qoreishy; Ali Keipourfard; Mohammadreza Minator Sajjadi; Shahram Shokraneh
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 10.  Standard radiography: untapped potential in the assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk.

Authors:  Pasi Pulkkinen; Simo Saarakkala; Miika T Nieminen; Timo Jämsä
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.