G I Im1, M J Lim. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, 814 Siksa-Dong, Goyang 411-773, Republic of Korea. gunil@duih.org
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The association between proximal femoral geometry and hip fracture risk were investigated. The risk of intertrochanteric fractures increased 1.64-fold and 2.32-fold with 1 standard deviation (sd) increase of hip axis length and neck-shaft angle, respectively, while the risk of femur neck fracture 2.03-fold with 1 sd decrease in femoral head offset. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between proximal femoral geometry (PFG) and the risk of hip fracture in femur neck (FN) and intertrochanteric (IT) fractures in a Korean population. METHODS: The study included 151 patients (57 patients with IT fractures, 43 patients with FN fractures, and 51 control patients). Data on BMD, PFG parameters (hip axis length [HAL], neck-shaft angle [NSA], neck length, femoral head offset, neck diameter, shaft diameter (SD), and demographics [age, gender, height, and body weight]) were collected. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios of PFG parameters corrected with demographic variables were obtained using logistic regressions. RESULTS: HAL (p = 0.046) and NSA (p = 0.003) were significantly greater in the patients with IT fracture than in the control patients, while neither parameter was significantly greater in patients with FN fractures than the control patients. The femoral head offset was significantly shorter in the patients with FN fractures (p = 0.003) compared with the control patients. In patients with IT fractures, the fracture risk increased 1.64-fold (p = 0.048) with a 1 sd increase of the HAL, while it increased 2.32-fold (p = 0.003) with a 1 sd increase of the NSA. In FN fractures, the fracture risk increased 2.03-fold (p = 0.012) with a 1 sd decrease in femoral head offset. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that some PFG parameters as well as BMD values predict hip fractures in a Korean population, and their evaluation may be useful in the understanding of the biomechanics of hip fractures.
UNLABELLED: The association between proximal femoral geometry and hip fracture risk were investigated. The risk of intertrochanteric fractures increased 1.64-fold and 2.32-fold with 1 standard deviation (sd) increase of hip axis length and neck-shaft angle, respectively, while the risk of femur neck fracture 2.03-fold with 1 sd decrease in femoral head offset. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between proximal femoral geometry (PFG) and the risk of hip fracture in femur neck (FN) and intertrochanteric (IT) fractures in a Korean population. METHODS: The study included 151 patients (57 patients with IT fractures, 43 patients with FN fractures, and 51 control patients). Data on BMD, PFG parameters (hip axis length [HAL], neck-shaft angle [NSA], neck length, femoral head offset, neck diameter, shaft diameter (SD), and demographics [age, gender, height, and body weight]) were collected. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios of PFG parameters corrected with demographic variables were obtained using logistic regressions. RESULTS:HAL (p = 0.046) and NSA (p = 0.003) were significantly greater in the patients with IT fracture than in the control patients, while neither parameter was significantly greater in patients with FN fractures than the control patients. The femoral head offset was significantly shorter in the patients with FN fractures (p = 0.003) compared with the control patients. In patients with IT fractures, the fracture risk increased 1.64-fold (p = 0.048) with a 1 sd increase of the HAL, while it increased 2.32-fold (p = 0.003) with a 1 sd increase of the NSA. In FN fractures, the fracture risk increased 2.03-fold (p = 0.012) with a 1 sd decrease in femoral head offset. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that some PFG parameters as well as BMD values predict hip fractures in a Korean population, and their evaluation may be useful in the understanding of the biomechanics of hip fractures.
Authors: S El-Kaissi; J A Pasco; M J Henry; S Panahi; J G Nicholson; G C Nicholson; M A Kotowicz Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Nicholas C Harvey; Zoe A Cole; Sarah R Crozier; Georgia Ntani; Pamela A Mahon; Sian M Robinson; Hazel M Inskip; Keith M Godfrey; Elaine M Dennison; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Michelle E Danielson; Thomas J Beck; Yinjuan Lian; Arun S Karlamangla; Gail A Greendale; Kristine Ruppert; Joan Lo; Susan Greenspan; Marike Vuga; Jane A Cauley Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Nan Jiang; Lin Peng; Mohammed Al-Qwbani; Guo-Ping Xie; Qin-Meng Yang; Yu Chai; Qing Zhang; Bin Yu Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 1.889