Literature DB >> 21419886

Male-female differences in the association between incident hip fracture and proximal femoral strength: a finite element analysis study.

J H Keyak1, S Sigurdsson, G Karlsdottir, D Oskarsdottir, A Sigmarsdottir, S Zhao, J Kornak, T B Harris, G Sigurdsson, B Y Jonsson, K Siggeirsdottir, G Eiriksdottir, V Gudnason, T F Lang.   

Abstract

Hip fracture risk is usually evaluated using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or quantitative computed tomography (QCT) which provide surrogate measures for proximal femoral strength. However, proximal femoral strength can best be estimated explicitly by combining QCT with finite element (FE) analysis. To evaluate this technique for predicting hip fracture in older men and women, we performed a nested age- and sex-matched case-control study in the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility (AGES) Reykjavik cohort. Baseline (pre-fracture) QCT scans of 5500 subjects were obtained. During 4-7 years follow-up, 51 men and 77 women sustained hip fractures. Ninety-seven men and 152 women were randomly selected as age- and sex-matched controls. FE-strength of the left hip of each subject for stance (F(Stance)) and posterolateral fall (F(Fall)) loading, and total femur areal bone mineral density (aBMD) were computed from the QCT data. F(Stance) and F(Fall) in incident hip fracture subjects were 13%-25% less than in control subjects (p ≤ 0.006) after controlling for demographic parameters. The difference between FE strengths of fracture and control subjects was disproportionately greater in men (stance, 22%; fall, 25%) than in women (stance, 13%; fall, 18%) (p ≤ 0.033), considering that F(Stance) and F(Fall) in fracture subjects were greater in men than in women (p < 0.001). For men, F(Stance) was associated with hip fracture after accounting for aBMD (p = 0.013). These data indicate that F(Stance) provides information about fracture risk that is beyond that provided by aBMD (p = 0.013). These findings support further exploration of possible sex differences in the predictors of hip fracture and of sex-specific strategies for using FE analysis to manage osteoporosis.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21419886      PMCID: PMC3095704          DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.03.682

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  24 in total

1.  Prediction of femoral fracture load using finite element models: an examination of stress- and strain-based failure theories.

Authors:  J H Keyak; S A Rossi
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Reproducibility and side differences of mechanical tests for determining the structural strength of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Felix Eckstein; Caecilia Wunderer; Holger Boehm; Volker Kuhn; Mathias Priemel; Thomas M Link; Eva-Maria Lochmüller
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-12-22       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Evaluation of hip fracture risk in relation to fall direction.

Authors:  Manabu Nankaku; Hideto Kanzaki; Tadao Tsuboyama; Takashi Nakamura
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-02-18       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: precision and relation to bone strength.

Authors:  T F Lang; J H Keyak; M W Heitz; P Augat; Y Lu; A Mathur; H K Genant
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Improved prediction of proximal femoral fracture load using nonlinear finite element models.

Authors:  J H Keyak
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.242

6.  Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling.

Authors:  J H Keyak; S A Rossi; K A Jones; H B Skinner
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models.

Authors:  Joyce H Keyak; Tadashi S Kaneko; Jamshid Tehranzadeh; Harry B Skinner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA.

Authors:  D D Cody; G J Gross; F J Hou; H J Spencer; S A Goldstein; D P Fyhrie
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry.

Authors:  X G Cheng; G Lowet; S Boonen; P H Nicholson; P Brys; J Nijs; J Dequeker
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.398

10.  Age-dependence of femoral strength in white women and men.

Authors:  Tony M Keaveny; David L Kopperdahl; L Joseph Melton; Paul F Hoffmann; Shreyasee Amin; B Lawrence Riggs; Sundeep Khosla
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  62 in total

1.  Finite element analysis applied to 3-T MR imaging of proximal femur microarchitecture: lower bone strength in patients with fragility fractures compared with control subjects.

Authors:  Gregory Chang; Stephen Honig; Ryan Brown; Cem M Deniz; Kenneth A Egol; James S Babb; Ravinder R Regatte; Chamith S Rajapakse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Advanced CT based in vivo methods for the assessment of bone density, structure, and strength.

Authors:  K Engelke; C Libanati; T Fuerst; P Zysset; H K Genant
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  Interactive graph-cut segmentation for fast creation of finite element models from clinical ct data for hip fracture prediction.

Authors:  Yves Pauchard; Thomas Fitze; Diego Browarnik; Amiraslan Eskandari; Irene Pauchard; William Enns-Bray; Halldór Pálsson; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Stephen J Ferguson; Tamara B Harris; Vilmundur Gudnason; Benedikt Helgason
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 1.763

4.  QCT-based failure analysis of proximal femurs under various loading orientations.

Authors:  Majid Mirzaei; Maziyar Keshavarzian; Fatemeh Alavi; Pegah Amiri; Saeid Samiezadeh
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  Finite Element-Based Mechanical Assessment of Bone Quality on the Basis of In Vivo Images.

Authors:  Dieter H Pahr; Philippe K Zysset
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.096

6.  Multiscale Predictors of Femoral Neck In Situ Strength in Aging Women: Contributions of BMD, Cortical Porosity, Reference Point Indentation, and Nonenzymatic Glycation.

Authors:  Adam C Abraham; Avinesh Agarwalla; Aditya Yadavalli; Christopher McAndrew; Jenny Y Liu; Simon Y Tang
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Vertebral and femoral bone mineral density and bone strength in prostate cancer patients assessed in phantomless PET/CT examinations.

Authors:  Benedikt J Schwaiger; David L Kopperdahl; Lorenzo Nardo; Luca Facchetti; Alexandra S Gersing; Jan Neumann; Kwang J Lee; Tony M Keaveny; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 8.  Finite element analysis of the hip and spine based on quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  R Dana Carpenter
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.096

9.  Left-right differences in the proximal femur's strength of post-menopausal women: a multicentric finite element study.

Authors:  F Taddei; C Falcinelli; L Balistreri; P Henys; F Baruffaldi; S Sigurdsson; V Gudnason; T B Harris; R Dietzel; G Armbrecht; S Boutroy; E Schileo
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Spatial heterogeneity in the response of the proximal femur to two lower-body resistance exercise regimens.

Authors:  Thomas F Lang; Isra H Saeed; Timothy Streeper; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Roy J Harnish; Lynda A Frassetto; Stuart M C Lee; Jean D Sibonga; Joyce H Keyak; Barry A Spiering; Carlos M Grodsinsky; Jacob J Bloomberg; Peter R Cavanagh
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 6.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.