Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Combination of Structural Parameters and Areal Bone Mineral Density Improves Relation to Proximal Femur Strength: An In Vitro Study with High-Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess structural indices from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) images of the human proximal femur along with areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and compare the relationship of these parameters to bone strength in vitro. Thirty-one human proximal femur specimens (8 men and 23 women, median age 74 years, range 50–89) were examined with HR-pQCT at four regions of interest (femoral head, neck, major and minor trochanter) with 82 μm and in a subgroup (n = 17) with 41 μm resolution. Separate analyses of cortical and trabecular geometry, volumetric BMD (vBMD), and microarchitectural parameters were obtained. In addition, aBMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was performed at conventional hip regions and maximal compressive strength (MCS) was determined in a side-impact biomechanical test. Twelve cervical and 19 trochanteric fractures were confirmed. Geometry, vBMD, microarchitecture, and aBMD correlated significantly with MCS, with Spearman’s correlation coefficients up to 0.77, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.85 (P < 0.001), respectively. No differences in these correlations were found using 41 μm compared to 82 μm resolution. In multiple regression analysis of MCS, a combined model (age- and sex-adjusted) with aBMD and structural parameters significantly increased R 2 values (up to 0.90) compared to a model holding aBMD alone (R 2 up to 0.78) (P < 0.05). Structural parameters and aBMD are equally related to MCS, and both cortical and trabecular structural parameters obtained from HR-pQCT images hold information on bone strength complementary to that of aBMD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2007) Increased mortality in patients with a hip fracture—effect of pre-morbid conditions and post-fracture complications. Osteoporos Int 18:1583–1593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ammann P, Rizzoli R (2003) Bone strength and its determinants. Osteoporos Int 14(Suppl 3):S13–S18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE, Cauley JA, Black DM, Hillier TA, Hochberg MC, Vogt MT, Orwoll ES (2005) Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90:2787–2793

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Dawson A, De LC, Jonsson B (2001) Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:989–995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Link TM, Vieth V, Langenberg R, Meier N, Lotter A, Newitt D, Majumdar S (2003) Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int 72:156–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baum T, Carballido-Gamio J, Huber MB, Muller D, Monetti R, Rath C, Eckstein F, Lochmuller EM, Majumdar S, Rummeny EJ, Link TM, Bauer JS (2010) Automated 3D trabecular bone structure analysis of the proximal femur—prediction of biomechanical strength by CT and DXA. Osteoporos Int 21:1553–1564

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauer JS, Kohlmann S, Eckstein F, Mueller D, Lochmuller EM, Link TM (2006) Structural analysis of trabecular bone of the proximal femur using multislice computed tomography: a comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry for predicting biomechanical strength in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 78:78–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lang TF, Keyak JH, Heitz MW, Augat P, Lu Y, Mathur A, Genant HK (1997) Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: precision and relation to bone strength. Bone 21:101–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bousson V, Le BA, Roqueplan F, Kang Y, Mitton D, Kolta S, Bergot C, Skalli W, Vicaut E, Kalender W, Engelke K, Laredo JD (2006) Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: relationships linking geometric and densitometric variables to bone strength. Role for compact bone. Osteoporos Int 17:855–864

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Manske SL, Liu-Ambrose T, de Bakker PM, Liu D, Kontulainen S, Guy P, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2006) Femoral neck cortical geometry measured with magnetic resonance imaging is associated with proximal femur strength. Osteoporos Int 17:1539–1545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Manske SL, Liu-Ambrose T, Cooper DM, Kontulainen S, Guy P, Forster BB, McKay HA (2009) Cortical and trabecular bone in the femoral neck both contribute to proximal femur failure load prediction. Osteoporos Int 20:445–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng XG, Lowet G, Boonen S, Nicholson PH, Brys P, Nijs J, Dequeker J (1997) Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry. Bone 20:213–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eckstein F, Matsuura M, Kuhn V, Priemel M, Muller R, Link TM, Lochmuller EM (2007) Sex differences of human trabecular bone microstructure in aging are site-dependent. J Bone Miner Res 22:817–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Link TM, Vieth V, Stehling C, Lotter A, Beer A, Newitt D, Majumdar S (2003) High-resolution MRI vs multislice spiral CT: Which technique depicts the trabecular bone structure best? Eur Radiol 13:663–671

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bauer JS, Link TM (2009) Advances in osteoporosis imaging. Eur J Radiol 71:440–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hildebrand T, Ruegsegger P (1997) A new method for the model independent assessment of thickness in three-dimensional images. J Microsc 185:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laib A, Hildebrand T, Hauselmann HJ, Ruegsegger P (1997) Ridge number density: a new parameter for in vivo bone structure analysis. Bone 21:541–546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Laib A, Ruegsegger P (1999) Calibration of trabecular bone structure measurements of in vivo three-dimensional peripheral quantitative computed tomography with 28-micron-resolution microcomputed tomography. Bone 24:35–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2007) Accuracy of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for measurement of bone quality. Med Eng Phys 29:1096–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buie HR, Campbell GM, Klinck RJ, MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2007) Automatic segmentation of cortical and trabecular compartments based on a dual threshold technique for in vivo micro-CT bone analysis. Bone 41:505–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen SP, Slosman D, Sorensen OH, Basse-Cathalinat B, De CP, Roux CR, Meunier PJ (1999) Influence of strontium on bone mineral density and bone mineral content measurements by dual X-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 2:371–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Warden KE, Scott WW Jr, Rao GU (1990) Predicting femoral neck strength from bone mineral data. A structural approach. Investig Radiol 25:6–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J (2005) Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Verhulp E, Van RB, Huiskes R (2008) Load distribution in the healthy and osteoporotic human proximal femur during a fall to the side. Bone 42:30–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. de Bakker PM, Manske SL, Ebacher V, Oxland TR, Cripton PA, Guy P (2009) During sideways falls proximal femur fractures initiate in the superolateral cortex: evidence from high-speed video of simulated fractures. J Biomech 42:1917–1925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bouxsein ML, Fajardo RJ (2005) Cortical stability of the femoral neck and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:1523–1524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Turner CH (2005) The biomechanics of hip fracture. Lancet 366:98–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sugiyama T, Taguchi T (2005) Cortical stability of the femoral neck and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:1525–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zebaze RM, Seeman E (2005) Cortical stability of the femoral neck and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:1523–1525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wachter NJ, Augat P, Mentzel M, Sarkar MR, Krischak GD, Kinzl L, Claes LE (2001) Predictive value of bone mineral density and morphology determined by peripheral quantitative computed tomography for cancellous bone strength of the proximal femur. Bone 28:133–139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Link TM, Majumdar S, Lin JC, Newitt D, Augat P, Ouyang X, Mathur A, Genant HK (1998) A comparative study of trabecular bone properties in the spine and femur using high resolution MRI and CT. J Bone Miner Res 13:122–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cody DD, McCubbrey DA, Divine GW, Gross GJ, Goldstein SA (1996) Predictive value of proximal femoral bone densitometry in determining local orthogonal material properties. J Biomech 29:753–761

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Huber MB, Carballido-Gamio J, Bauer JS, Baum T, Eckstein F, Lochmuller EM, Majumdar S, Link TM (2008) Proximal femur specimens: automated 3D trabecular bone mineral density analysis at multidetector CT—correlation with biomechanical strength measurement. Radiology 247:472–481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Black DM, Bouxsein ML, Marshall LM, Cummings SR, Lang TF, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Nielson CM, Orwoll ES (2008) Proximal femoral structure and the prediction of hip fracture in men: a large prospective study using QCT. J Bone Miner Res 23:1326–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Johannesdottir F, Poole KE, Reeve J, Siggeirsdottir K, Aspelund T, Mogensen B, Jonsson BY, Sigurdsson S, Harris TB, Gudnason VG, Sigurdsson G (2011) Distribution of cortical bone in the femoral neck and hip fracture: a prospective case–control analysis of 143 incident hip fractures; the AGES-REYKJAVIK Study. Bone 48:1268–1276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Courtney AC, Wachtel EF, Myers ER, Hayes WC (1994) Effects of loading rate on strength of the proximal femur. Calcif Tissue Int 55:53–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang KH, Shen KL, Demetropoulos CK, King AI, Kolodziej P, Levine RS, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1996) The relationship between loading conditions and fracture patterns of the proximal femur. J Biomech Eng 118:575–578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pinilla TP, Boardman KC, Bouxsein ML, Myers ER, Hayes WC (1996) Impact direction from a fall influences the failure load of the proximal femur as much as age-related bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int 58:231–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Cody DD, Gross GJ, Hou FJ, Spencer HJ, Goldstein SA, Fyhrie DP (1999) Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J Biomech 32:1013–1020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Li W, Kornak J, Harris T, Keyak J, Li C, Lu Y, Cheng X, Lang T (2009) Identify fracture-critical regions inside the proximal femur using statistical parametric mapping. Bone 44:596–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by grants from the PhD School of Endocrinology (University of Southern Denmark) and the Region of Southern Denmark. Thanks to Elizabeth Hanmann for performing DXA scans and to Claire Gudex for proofreading and language help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 6. 1.sal, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Stinus Hansen, Fabian Ahrberg & Kim Brixen

  2. Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Stinus Hansen & Kim Brixen

  3. Osteoporosis Research Clinic, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegård Alle 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark

    Jens-Erik Beck Jensen

  4. Department of Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark

    Ellen M. Hauge

Authors
  1. Stinus Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jens-Erik Beck Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabian Ahrberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ellen M. Hauge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kim Brixen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stinus Hansen.

Additional information

The authors have stated that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansen, S., Jensen, JE.B., Ahrberg, F. et al. The Combination of Structural Parameters and Areal Bone Mineral Density Improves Relation to Proximal Femur Strength: An In Vitro Study with High-Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography. Calcif Tissue Int 89, 335–346 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-011-9523-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-011-9523-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation