Literature DB >> 28739416

Comparison of non-invasive assessments of strength of the proximal femur.

Fjola Johannesdottir1, Erica Thrall2, John Muller2, Tony M Keaveny3, David L Kopperdahl4, Mary L Bouxsein5.   

Abstract

It is not clear which non-invasive method is most effective for predicting strength of the proximal femur in those at highest risk of fracture. The primary aim of this study was to compare the abilities of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived aBMD, quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-derived density and volume measures, and finite element analysis (FEA)-estimated strength to predict femoral failure load. We also evaluated the contribution of cortical and trabecular bone measurements to proximal femur strength. We obtained 76 human cadaveric proximal femurs (50 women and 26 men; age 74±8.8years), performed imaging with DXA and QCT, and mechanically tested the femurs to failure in a sideways fall configuration at a high loading rate. Linear regression analysis was used to construct the predictive model between imaging outcomes and experimentally-measured femoral strength for each method. To compare the performance of each method we used 3-fold cross validation repeated 10 times. The bone strength estimated by QCT-based FEA predicted femoral failure load (R2adj=0.78, 95%CI 0.76-0.80; RMSE=896N, 95%CI 830-961) significantly better than femoral neck aBMD by DXA (R2adj=0.69, 95%CI 0.66-0.72; RMSE=1011N, 95%CI 952-1069) and the QCT-based model (R2adj=0.73, 95%CI 0.71-0.75; RMSE=932N, 95%CI 879-985). Both cortical and trabecular bone contribute to femoral strength, the contribution of cortical bone being higher in femurs with lower trabecular bone density. These findings have implications for optimizing clinical approaches to assess hip fracture risk. In addition, our findings provide new insights that will assist in interpretation of the effects of osteoporosis treatments that preferentially impact cortical versus trabecular bone.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cortical vs. trabecular; DXA; Femoral strength; Hip fracture; QCT

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28739416     DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.07.023

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


  23 in total

1.  MRI-based assessment of proximal femur strength compared to mechanical testing.

Authors:  Chamith S Rajapakse; Alexander R Farid; Daniel C Kargilis; Brandon C Jones; Jae S Lee; Alyssa J Johncola; Alexandra S Batzdorf; Snehal S Shetye; Michael W Hast; Gregory Chang
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Factors associated with proximal femur fracture determined in a large cadaveric cohort.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Timothy L Rossman; Asghar Rezaei; Kent D Carlson; David F Kallmes; John A Skinner; Sundeep Khosla; Shreyasee Amin
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  External bone size identifies different strength-decline trajectories for the male human femora.

Authors:  Morgan W Bolger; Genevieve E Romanowicz; Erin M R Bigelow; Ferrous S Ward; Antonio Ciarelli; Karl J Jepsen; David H Kohn
Journal:  J Struct Biol       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.867

4.  Osteoporosis and Hip Fracture Risk From Routine Computed Tomography Scans: The Fracture, Osteoporosis, and CT Utilization Study (FOCUS).

Authors:  Annette L Adams; Heidi Fischer; David L Kopperdahl; David C Lee; Dennis M Black; Mary L Bouxsein; Shireen Fatemi; Sundeep Khosla; Eric S Orwoll; Ethel S Siris; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; J-Y Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Hip load capacity and yield load in men and women of all ages.

Authors:  J H Keyak; T S Kaneko; S Khosla; S Amin; E J Atkinson; T F Lang; J D Sibonga
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Perspectives on the non-invasive evaluation of femoral strength in the assessment of hip fracture risk.

Authors:  M L Bouxsein; P Zysset; C C Glüer; M McClung; E Biver; D D Pierroz; S L Ferrari
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Fracture Prediction by Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Fjola Johannesdottir; Brett Allaire; Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 9.  Role of Biomolecules in Osteoclasts and Their Therapeutic Potential for Osteoporosis.

Authors:  Xin Zhao; Suryaji Patil; Fang Xu; Xiao Lin; Airong Qian
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2021-05-17

10.  Comparison of Vertebral and Femoral Strength Between White and Asian Adults Using Finite Element Analysis of Computed Tomography Scans.

Authors:  Namki Hong; David C Lee; Sundeep Khosla; Tony M Keaveny; Yumie Rhee
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 6.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.