Effects of Hip Geometry on Fracture Patterns of Proximal Femur | ||
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
مقاله 10، دوره 4، شماره 3، مهر 2016، صفحه 248-252 اصل مقاله (425.7 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2016.6993 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Seyyed Morteza Kazemi1؛ Mohamad Qoreishy* 1؛ Ali Keipourfard1؛ Mohammadreza Minator Sajjadi2؛ Shahram Shokraneh1 | ||
1Akhtar Orthopedic Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
2Taleghani Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
چکیده | ||
Background: Some studies have previously shown that geometry of proximal femur can affect the probability of fracture and type of fracture. It happens since the geometry of the proximal femur determines how a force is applied to its different parts. In this study, we have compared proximal femur’s geometric characteristics in femoral neck (FNF), intertrochanteric (ITF) and Subtrochanteric (STF) fractures. Methods: In this study, 60 patients who had hip fractures were studied as case studies. They were divided into FNF, ITF and STF groups based on their fracture types (20 patients in each group). Patients were studied with x-ray radiography and CT scans. Radiological parameters including femoral neck length from lateral cortex to center of femoral head (FNL), diameter of femoral head (FHD), diameter of femoral neck (FND), femoral head neck offset (FHNO), neck-shaft angle (alpha), femoral neck anteversion (beta) were measured and compared in all three groups. Results: Amount of FNL was significantly higher in STF group compared to FNF (0.011) while ITF and STF as well as FNT and ITF did not show a significant different. Also, FND in FNF group was significantly lower than the other two groups, i.e. ITF and STF. In other cases there were no instances of significant statistical difference. Conclusion: Hip geometry can be used to identify individuals who are at the risk of fracture with special pattern. Also, it is important to have more studies in different populations and more in men. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Femur؛ Fracture؛ geometry؛ Hip | ||
مراجع | ||
1. Karlsson KM, Sernbo I, Obrant KJ, Redlund-Johnell I, Johnell O. Femoral neck geometry and radiographic signs of osteoporosis as predictors of hip fracture. Bone. 1996; 18(4):327-30. 2. Chappard C, Bousson V, Bergot C, Mitton D, Marchadier A, Moser T, et al. Prediction of femoral fracture load: cross-sectional study of texture analysis and geometric measurements on plain radiographs versus bone mineral density. Radiology. 2010; 255(2):536-43. 3. Pulkkinen P, Jamsa T, Lochmuller EM, Kuhn V, Nieminen MT, Eckstein F. Experimental hip fracture load can be predicted from plain radiography by combined analysis of trabecular bone structure and bone geometry. Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19(4):547-58. 4. Thevenot J, Pulkkinen P, Kuhn V, Eckstein F, Jamsa T. Structural asymmetry between the hips and its relation to experimental fracture type. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010; 87(3):203-10. 5. Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisi L, Fini M, Giardino R, Giavaresi G. Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2002; 13(1):69-73. 6. Crabtree N, Lunt M, Holt G, Kroger H, Burger H, Grazio S, et al. Hip geometry, bone mineral distribution, and bone strength in European men and women: the EPOS study. Bone. 2000; 27(1):151-9. 7. Hassankhani EG, Omidi-Kashani F, Hajitaghi H, Hassankhani GG. How to Treat the Complex Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures in Elderly Patients? DHS or Arthroplasty. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2014 Sep;2(3):174-9. PubMed PMID: 25386578. eng. 8. Beck TJ, Looker AC, Ruff CB, Sievanen H, Wahner HW. Structural trends in the aging femoral neck and proximal shaft: analysis of the third national health and nutrition examination survey dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry data. J Bone Miner Res. 2000; 15(12):2297-304. 9. Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, Palermo L, Gluer CC, Genant HK. Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 1993; 8(10):1211-7. 10. Gregory JS, Testi D, Stewart A, Undrill PE, Reid DM, Aspden RM. A method for assessment of the shape of the proximal femur and its relationship to osteoporotic hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004; 15(1):5-11. 11. Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, Les CM, Skinner HB. Prediction of fracture location in the proximal femur using finite element models. Med Eng phys. 2001; 23(9):657-64. 12. Gregory JS, Testi D, Stewart A, Undrill PE, Reid DM, Aspden RM. A method for assessment of the shape of the proximal femur and its relationship to osteoporotic hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 15(1):5-11. 13. Pulkkinen P, Eckstein F, Lochmuller EM, Kuhn V, Jamsa T. Association of geometric factors and failure load level with the distribution of cervical vs. Trochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2006; 21(6):895-901. 14. Bouxsein ML, Szulc P, Munoz F, Thrall E, Sornay- Rendu E, Delmas PD. Contribution of trochanteric soft tissues to fall force estimates, the factor of risk, and prediction of hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. 2007; 22(6):825-31. 15. Rudman KE, Aspden RM, Meakin JR. Compression or tension? The stress distribution in the proximal femur. Biomed Eng online. 2006; 5(1):12-9. 16. Flicker L, Faulkner KG, Hopper JL, Green RM, Kaymacki B, Nowson CA, et al. Determinants of hip axis length in women aged 10-89 years: a twin study. Bone. 1996; 18(1):41-5. 17. Bowey A, Andrew B. Proximal femoral geometry and hip fracture patterns. A multi-centre comparative radiological study from southern Australia and western Scotland. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010; 92(SUPP II):271-2. 18. Karasik D, Dupuis J, Cupples LA, Beck TJ, Mahaney MC, Havill LM, et al. Bivariate linkage study of proximal hip geometry and body size indices: the framingham study. Calcif Tissue Int. 2007; 81(3):162-73. 19. Martens M, van Audekercke R, de Meester P, Mulier JC. The mechanical characteristics of the long bones of the lower extremity in torsional loading. J Biomech. 1980; 13(8):667-76. 20. Alonso CG, Curiel MD, Carranza FH, Cano RP, Perez AD. Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Multicenter Project for Research in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(8):714-20. 21. Woodhead HJ, Kemp AF, Blimkie CJR, Briody JN, Duncan CS, Thompson M, et al. Measurement of midfemoral shaft geometry: repeatability and accuracy using magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res. 2001; 16(12):2251-9. 22. Nakamura T, Turner CH, Yoshikawa T, Slemenda CW, Peacock M, Burr DB, et al. Do variations in hip geometry explain differences in hip fracture risk between Japanese and white Americans. J Bone Miner Res. 1994; 9(7):1071-6. 23. Greendale GA, Young JT, Huang MH, Bucur A, Wang Y, Seeman T. Hip axis length in mid-life Japanese and Caucasian U.S. residents: no evidence for an ethnic difference. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 14(4):320-5. 24. Partanen J, Jamsa T, Jalovaara P. Influence of the upper femur and pelvic geometry on the risk and type of hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2001; 16(8):1540-6. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,320 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,294 |