Cargando…

Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although it is widely recognized that hip BMD is reduced in patients with hip fracture, the differences in geometrical parameters such as cortical volume and thickness between subjects with and without hip fracture are less well known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Ling, Yang, Minghui, Liu, Yandong, Ge, Yufeng, Zhu, Shiwen, Su, Yongbin, Cheng, Xiaoguang, Wu, Xinbao, Blake, Glen M., Engelke, Klaus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35282435
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.799381
_version_ 1784665637639946240
author Wang, Ling
Yang, Minghui
Liu, Yandong
Ge, Yufeng
Zhu, Shiwen
Su, Yongbin
Cheng, Xiaoguang
Wu, Xinbao
Blake, Glen M.
Engelke, Klaus
author_facet Wang, Ling
Yang, Minghui
Liu, Yandong
Ge, Yufeng
Zhu, Shiwen
Su, Yongbin
Cheng, Xiaoguang
Wu, Xinbao
Blake, Glen M.
Engelke, Klaus
author_sort Wang, Ling
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although it is widely recognized that hip BMD is reduced in patients with hip fracture, the differences in geometrical parameters such as cortical volume and thickness between subjects with and without hip fracture are less well known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and sixty two community-dwelling elderly women with hip CT scans were included in this cross-sectional study, of whom 236 had an acute hip fracture. 326 age matched women without hip fracture served as controls. MIAF-Femur software was used for the measurement of the intact contralateral femur in patients with hip fracture and the left femur of the controls. Integral and cortical volumes (Vols) of the total hip (TH), femoral head (FH), femoral neck (FN), trochanter (TR) and intertrochanter (IT) were analyzed. In the FH and FN the volumes were further subdivided into superior anterior (SA) and posterior (SP) as well as inferior anterior (IA) and posterior (IP) quadrants. Cortical thickness (CortThick) was determined for all sub volumes of interest (VOIs) listed above. RESULTS: The average age of the control and fracture groups was 71.7 and 72.0 years, respectively. The fracture patients had significantly lower CortThick and Vol of all VOIs except for TRVol. In the fracture patients, cortical thickness and volume at the FN were significantly lower in all quadrants except for cortical volume of quadrant SA (p= 0.635). Hip fracture patients had smaller integral FN volume and cross-sectional area (CSA) before and after adjustment of age, height and weight. With respect to hip fracture discrimination, cortical volume performed poorer than cortical thickness across the whole proximal femur. The ratio of Cort/TrabMass (RCTM), a measure of the internal distribution of bone, performed better than cortical thickness in discriminating hip fracture risk. The highest area under curve (AUC) value of 0.805 was obtained for the model that included THCortThick, FHVol, THRCTM and FNCSA. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in total and cortical volume as well as cortical thickness between fractured and unfractured women across the proximal femur. A combination of geometric variables resulted in similar discrimination power for hip fracture risk as aBMD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8907418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89074182022-03-11 Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study Wang, Ling Yang, Minghui Liu, Yandong Ge, Yufeng Zhu, Shiwen Su, Yongbin Cheng, Xiaoguang Wu, Xinbao Blake, Glen M. Engelke, Klaus Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Endocrinology BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although it is widely recognized that hip BMD is reduced in patients with hip fracture, the differences in geometrical parameters such as cortical volume and thickness between subjects with and without hip fracture are less well known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and sixty two community-dwelling elderly women with hip CT scans were included in this cross-sectional study, of whom 236 had an acute hip fracture. 326 age matched women without hip fracture served as controls. MIAF-Femur software was used for the measurement of the intact contralateral femur in patients with hip fracture and the left femur of the controls. Integral and cortical volumes (Vols) of the total hip (TH), femoral head (FH), femoral neck (FN), trochanter (TR) and intertrochanter (IT) were analyzed. In the FH and FN the volumes were further subdivided into superior anterior (SA) and posterior (SP) as well as inferior anterior (IA) and posterior (IP) quadrants. Cortical thickness (CortThick) was determined for all sub volumes of interest (VOIs) listed above. RESULTS: The average age of the control and fracture groups was 71.7 and 72.0 years, respectively. The fracture patients had significantly lower CortThick and Vol of all VOIs except for TRVol. In the fracture patients, cortical thickness and volume at the FN were significantly lower in all quadrants except for cortical volume of quadrant SA (p= 0.635). Hip fracture patients had smaller integral FN volume and cross-sectional area (CSA) before and after adjustment of age, height and weight. With respect to hip fracture discrimination, cortical volume performed poorer than cortical thickness across the whole proximal femur. The ratio of Cort/TrabMass (RCTM), a measure of the internal distribution of bone, performed better than cortical thickness in discriminating hip fracture risk. The highest area under curve (AUC) value of 0.805 was obtained for the model that included THCortThick, FHVol, THRCTM and FNCSA. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in total and cortical volume as well as cortical thickness between fractured and unfractured women across the proximal femur. A combination of geometric variables resulted in similar discrimination power for hip fracture risk as aBMD. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8907418/ /pubmed/35282435 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.799381 Text en Copyright © 2022 Wang, Yang, Liu, Ge, Zhu, Su, Cheng, Wu, Blake and Engelke https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Endocrinology
Wang, Ling
Yang, Minghui
Liu, Yandong
Ge, Yufeng
Zhu, Shiwen
Su, Yongbin
Cheng, Xiaoguang
Wu, Xinbao
Blake, Glen M.
Engelke, Klaus
Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title_full Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title_fullStr Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title_short Differences in Hip Geometry Between Female Subjects With and Without Acute Hip Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study
title_sort differences in hip geometry between female subjects with and without acute hip fracture: a cross-sectional case-control study
topic Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35282435
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.799381
work_keys_str_mv AT wangling differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT yangminghui differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT liuyandong differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT geyufeng differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT zhushiwen differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT suyongbin differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT chengxiaoguang differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT wuxinbao differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT blakeglenm differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy
AT engelkeklaus differencesinhipgeometrybetweenfemalesubjectswithandwithoutacutehipfractureacrosssectionalcasecontrolstudy