Ram R Miller1, Marty Eastlack2, Gregory E Hicks3, Dawn E Alley4, Michelle D Shardell5, Denise L Orwig4, Bret H Goodpaster6, Peter J Chomentowski7, William G Hawkes4, Marc C Hochberg8, Luigi Ferrucci9, Jay Magaziner4. 1. GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine. ram.6.miller@gsk.com. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Arcadia University, Glenside, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark. 4. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine. 5. Division of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. 6. Translational Research Institute for Metabolism and Diabetes, Florida Hospital, Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, Orlando. 7. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. 9. Longitudinal Studies Section, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is an important problem for older adults with significant functional consequences. After hip fracture, reduced muscle loading can result in muscle atrophy. METHODS: We compared thigh muscle characteristics in the fractured leg to those in the nonfractured leg in participants from the Baltimore Hip Studies 7th cohort using computed tomography scan imaging. RESULTS: At 2 months postfracture, a single 10mm axial computed tomography scan was obtained at the midthigh level in 43 participants (23 men, 20 women) with a mean age of 79.9 years (range: 65-96 years), and thigh muscle cross-sectional area, cross-sectional area of intermuscular adipose tissue, and mean radiologic attenuation were measured. Total thigh muscle cross-sectional area was less on the side of the fracture by 9.46cm(2) (95% CI: 5.97cm(2), 12.95cm(2)) while the cross-sectional area of intermuscular adipose tissue was greater by 2.97cm(2) (95% CI: 1.94cm(2), 4.01cm(2)) on the fractured side. Mean muscle attenuation was lower on the side of the fracture by 3.66 Hounsfield Units (95% CI: 2.98 Hounsfield Units, 4.34 Hounsfield Units). CONCLUSIONS: The observed asymmetry is consistent with the effect of disuse and inflammation in the affected limb along with training effects in the unaffected limb due to the favoring of this leg with ambulation during the postfracture period.
BACKGROUND:Hip fracture is an important problem for older adults with significant functional consequences. After hip fracture, reduced muscle loading can result in muscle atrophy. METHODS: We compared thigh muscle characteristics in the fractured leg to those in the nonfractured leg in participants from the Baltimore Hip Studies 7th cohort using computed tomography scan imaging. RESULTS: At 2 months postfracture, a single 10mm axial computed tomography scan was obtained at the midthigh level in 43 participants (23 men, 20 women) with a mean age of 79.9 years (range: 65-96 years), and thigh muscle cross-sectional area, cross-sectional area of intermuscular adipose tissue, and mean radiologic attenuation were measured. Total thigh muscle cross-sectional area was less on the side of the fracture by 9.46cm(2) (95% CI: 5.97cm(2), 12.95cm(2)) while the cross-sectional area of intermuscular adipose tissue was greater by 2.97cm(2) (95% CI: 1.94cm(2), 4.01cm(2)) on the fractured side. Mean muscle attenuation was lower on the side of the fracture by 3.66 Hounsfield Units (95% CI: 2.98 Hounsfield Units, 4.34 Hounsfield Units). CONCLUSIONS: The observed asymmetry is consistent with the effect of disuse and inflammation in the affected limb along with training effects in the unaffected limb due to the favoring of this leg with ambulation during the postfracture period.
Authors: B H Goodpaster; C L Carlson; M Visser; D E Kelley; A Scherzinger; T B Harris; E Stamm; A B Newman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2001-06
Authors: J P Michel; P Hoffmeyer; C Klopfenstein; M Bruchez; B Grab; C L d'Epinay Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: J Magaziner; W Hawkes; J R Hebel; S I Zimmerman; K M Fox; M Dolan; G Felsenthal; J Kenzora Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: M Visser; T B Harris; K M Fox; W Hawkes; J R Hebel; J Y Yahiro; R Michael; S I Zimmerman; J Magaziner Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: K M Fox; J Magaziner; W G Hawkes; J Yu-Yahiro; J R Hebel; S I Zimmerman; L Holder; R Michael Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2000 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Anne B Newman; Catherine L Haggerty; Bret Goodpaster; Tamara Harris; Steve Kritchevsky; Michael Nevitt; Toni P Miles; Marjolein Visser Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael O Harris-Love; Nilo A Avila; Bernadette Adams; June Zhou; Bryant Seamon; Catheeja Ismail; Syed H Zaidi; Courtney A Kassner; Frank Liu; Marc R Blackman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.241