Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combination of bone mineral density and upper femur geometry improves the prediction of hip fracture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the main determinant of the clinical evaluation of hip fracture risk. However, it has been shown that BMD is not the only predictive factor for hip fracture, but that bone geometry is also important. We studied whether the combination of bone geometry and BMD could further improve the determination of hip fracture risk and fracture type. Seventy-four postmenopausal females (mean age 74 years) with a non-pathologic cervical or trochanteric hip fracture without previous hip fracture or hip surgery constituted the study group. Forty-nine had a cervical fracture (mean age 73 years) and 25 had a trochanteric fracture (mean age 76 years). The control group consisted of 40 age-matched females (mean age 74 years). The geometrical parameters were defined from plain anteroposterior radiographs, and the potential sources of inaccuracy were eliminated as far as possible by using a standardized patient position and calibrated dimension measurements with digital image analysis. BMD was measured at the femoral neck (FEBMD), Ward’s triangle (WABMD), and the trochanter (TRBMD). Stepwise linear regression analysis showed that the best predictor of hip fracture was the combination of medial calcar femoral cortex width (CFC), TRBMD, neck/shaft angle (NSA), and WABMD (r=0.72, r 2=0.52, P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for this model was 0.93, while the area under ROC for TRBMD alone was 0.81. At a specificity of 80%, sensitivity improved from 52.5% to 92.5% with this combination compared with TRBMD alone. The combined predictors of cervical and trochanteric fracture differed, being NSA, CFC, TRBMD, and WABMD for cervical and TRBMD and femoral shaft cortical thickness for trochanteric fracture. In addition, we found a statistically significant correlation between FEBMD and femoral shaft and femoral neck cortex width (r=0.40, P<0.01 and r=0.30, P<0.01, respectively). The results confirm that the combination of BMD and radiological measures of upper femur geometry improve the assessment of the risk of hip fracture and fracture type compared to BMD alone, and that bone geometry plays an important role in the evaluation of bone strength.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Melton LJ III, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1987) Secular trends in the incidence of hip fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 41:57–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cummings SR, Black DM, Rubin SM (1989) Lifetime risks of hip, Colles’ or vertebral fracture, and coronary heart disease among white postmenopausal women. Arch Int Med 14:2445–2448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Greenspan SL, Myers ER, Kiel DP et al. (1998) Fall direction, bone mineral density, and function: risk factors for hip fracture in frail nursing home elderly. Am J Med 104:539–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Partanen J, Heikkinen J, Jämsä T et al. (2002) Characteristics of lifetime factors, bone metabolism, and bone mineral density in patients with hip fracture. J Bone Miner Metab 20:367–375

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lang SM, Moyle DD, Berg EW et al. (1988) Correlation of mechanical properties of vertebral trabecular bone with equivalent mineral density as measured by computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70:1531–1538

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA (1988) On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech 21:155–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B et al. (2000) Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int 11:985–1009

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hawker GA, Jamal SA, Ridout R et al. (2002) A clinical prediction rule to identify premenopausal women with low bone mass. Osteoporos Int 13:400–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glüer CC, Cummings SR, Pressmann A et al. (1994) Prediction of hip fracture from pelvic radiographs: the study of osteoporotic fractures. The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Bone Miner Res 9:671–677

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Partanen J, Jämsä T, Jalovaara P (2001) Influence of the upper femur and pelvic geometry on the risk and type of hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 16:1540–1546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisi L et al. (2002) Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 13:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Turner CH, Burr DB (1993) Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. Bone 14:595–608

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frost HM (1997) On our age-related bone loss: insights from a new paradigm. J Bone Miner Res 12:1539–1546

    Google Scholar 

  14. van Audekercke, van der Perre (1994) The effect of osteoporosis on the mechanical properties of bone structures. Clin Rheumatol 13:38–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martens M, van Audekercke R, de Meester P et al. (1980) The mechanical characteristics of the long bones of the lower extremity in torsional loading. J Biomech 13:667–676

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crabtree NJ, Kroger H, Martin A et al. (2002) Improving risk assessment: hip geometry, bone mineral distribution and bone strength in hip fracture cases and controls. The EPOS study. Osteoporos Int 13:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karlsson KM, Sernbo I, Obrant KJ et al. (1996) Femoral neck geometry and radiographic signs of osteoporosis as predictors of hip fracture. Bone 18:327–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G et al. (1999) Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 72:729–733

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alonso CG, Curiel MD, Carranza FH et al. (2000) Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Osteoporos Int 11:714–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D (1993) Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 8:1211–1217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peacock M, Turner CH, Liu G et al. (1995) Better discrimination of hip fracture using bone density, geometry and architecture. Osteoporos Int 5:167–173

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bergot C, Bousson V, Meunier A et al. (2002) Hip fracture risk and proximal femur geometry from DXA scans. Osteoporos Int 13:542–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Michelotti J, Clark J (1999) Femoral neck length and hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 14:1714–1720

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rico H, Revilla M, Villa LF et al. (1994) Comparison between metacarpal bone measurements by computerized radiogrammetry and total body DEXA in normal and osteoporotic women. Clin Rheumatol 13:593–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Woodhead HJ, Kemp AF, Blimkie CJR (2001) Measurement of midfemoral shaft geometry: repeatability and accuracy using magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 16:2251–2259

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pocock NA, Noakes KA, Majerovic Y et al. (1997) Magnification error of femoral geometry using fan beam densitometers. Calcif Tissue Int 60:8–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Frost HM (1990) Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 1. Redefining Wolff’s law: the bone modeling problem. Anat Rec 226:403–413

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rafferty KL (1997) Structural design of the femoral neck in primates. J Hum Evol 34:361–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frost HM (1990) Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 2. Redefining Wolff’s law: the remodeling problem. Anat Rec 226:414–422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Currey JD (2003) How well are bones designed to resist fracture? J Bone Miner Res 18:591–598

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The University of Oulu Relief Fund is acknowledged for a grant to Pasi Pulkkinen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Technology, University of Oulu, PO Box 5000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Pasi Pulkkinen & Timo Jämsä

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Oulu, PO Box 5000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Juha Partanen & Pekka Jalovaara

Authors
  1. Pasi Pulkkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juha Partanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pekka Jalovaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timo Jämsä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasi Pulkkinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pulkkinen, P., Partanen, J., Jalovaara, P. et al. Combination of bone mineral density and upper femur geometry improves the prediction of hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15, 274–280 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1556-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1556-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation