Literature DB >> 26801666

Comparison of morphological features in the femur between femoral neck fractures and femoral intertrochanteric fractures.

Koun Yamauchi1, Mitsuishi Naofumi2, Hisashi Sumida2, Shoji Fukuta2, Hirohiko Hori2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to make proximal femur fracture types more predictable by considering morphological features of an acetabulum as well as of a proximal femur in the Japanese population.
METHODS: A retrospective review of radiographs of the proximal femoral fractures was conducted in patients registered from 2010 to 2012, dividing into patients with femoral neck fractures; Group Neck (n = 101), and patients with femoral intertrochanteric fractures; Group IT (n = 99). Intergroup comparison was conducted: age, sex, height, weight, the ratios of femoral intertrochanteric length (IT Length), femoral neck length (Neck Length), femoral neck width (Neck Width), lateral offset length (Offset) to femoral head diameter, neck-shaft angle (N-S angle), and center-edge angle of the acetabulum (C-E angle), adjusting for age. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted among these parameters.
RESULTS: The Group IT showed significantly older age than the Group Neck. Greater C-E angle in Group IT was observed in the patients in their 80s and 90s years of age. The Group Neck showed greater N-S angle only in the patients in their 80s years of age. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the impact of the age and the C-E angle on the fracture types was similar (odds ratio 1.08, 1.09, respectively, p < 0.01 both).
CONCLUSIONS: Age, N-S angle, and C-E angle could be independent predictors for determining the proximal femur fracture types.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabulum; Femur; Japanese population; Morphology; Proximal femoral fractures

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26801666     DOI: 10.1007/s00276-016-1626-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat        ISSN: 0930-1038            Impact factor:   1.246


  17 in total

1.  Prediction of femoral impact forces in falls on the hip.

Authors:  S N Robinovitch; W C Hayes; T A McMahon
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.097

2.  Structural design of the femoral neck in primates.

Authors:  K L Rafferty
Journal:  J Hum Evol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.895

Review 3.  Are the etiologies of cervical and trochanteric hip fractures different?

Authors:  C A Mautalen; E M Vega; T A Einhorn
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Cervical and trochanteric hip fractures: bone mass and other parameters.

Authors:  A Stewart; R W Porter; W R Primrose; L G Walker; D M Reid
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Bone mineral density, hip axis length and risk of hip fracture in men: results from the Cornwall Hip Fracture Study.

Authors:  I Pande; T W O'Neill; C Pritchard; D L Scott; A D Woolf
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Influence of the upper femur and pelvic geometry on the risk and type of hip fractures.

Authors:  J Partanen; T Jämsä; P Jalovaara
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Impact near the hip dominates fracture risk in elderly nursing home residents who fall.

Authors:  W C Hayes; E R Myers; J N Morris; T N Gerhart; H S Yett; L A Lipsitz
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Morphology of the femur in proximal femoral fractures.

Authors:  B D Ferris; C Kennedy; M Bhamra; W Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1989-05

9.  Prediction of hip fractures from pelvic radiographs: the study of osteoporotic fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  C C Glüer; S R Cummings; A Pressman; J Li; K Glüer; K G Faulkner; S Grampp; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Fall direction, bone mineral density, and function: risk factors for hip fracture in frail nursing home elderly.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; E R Myers; D P Kiel; R A Parker; W C Hayes; N M Resnick
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  5 in total

1.  Can Lateral Offset Be Used as a Predictive Marker for Proximal Femur Disorders?

Authors:  Bilge İpek Torun; Simel Kendir; Ferhat Geneci; Muhammed B Uzuner; Mert Ocak; Burak Bilecenoğlu; Çetin Işık; Kadir Desdicioğlu
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 1.251

2.  Incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury after femoral neck fracture in elderly patients: a retrospective case-control study.

Authors:  Sizheng Zhan; Wenyong Xie; Ming Yang; Dianying Zhang; Baoguo Jiang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  CCD angle & hip fractures - Predictor of fracture symmetry?

Authors:  Ben Hannes Thalmann; David Latz; Erik Schiffner; Pascal Jungbluth; Joachim Windolf; Jan Grassmann
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-12

4.  Comparison of Proximal Femoral Geometry and Risk Factors between Femoral Neck Fractures and Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures in an Elderly Chinese Population.

Authors:  Zu-Sheng Hu; Xian-Ling Liu; Ying-Ze Zhang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 2.628

Review 5.  Treatment comparison of femoral shaft with femoral neck fracture: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yao Lu; Yakang Wang; Zhe Song; Qian Wang; Liang Sun; Cheng Ren; Hanzhong Xue; Zhong Li; Kun Zhang; Dingjun Hao; Yang Zhao; Teng Ma
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 2.359

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.