Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 174–185 | Cite as

Femoral Neck Bone Strength Estimated by Hip Structural Analysis (HSA) in Swedish Caucasians Aged 6–90 Years

  • Gayani Alwis
  • Caroline Karlsson
  • Susanna Stenevi-Lundgren
  • Björn E. Rosengren
  • Magnus K. Karlsson
Original Research


Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry hip scans of 1,760 population-based Caucasians, 599 girls and 642 boys aged 6–19 years and 270 women and 249 men aged 20–90 years, were analyzed with the hip structural analysis (HSA) software to present age- and sex-specific normative HSA data of the femoral neck (FN). Measured traits included bone mineral density (BMD), cross-sectional area (CSA), section modulus (Z), periosteal diameter (PD), endosteal diameter (ED), cortical thickness (CT), and cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI). When plotting the measured traits versus age, the curves increased with higher ages until statistically significant break points were reached, for all traits at age 17 in girls and age 19 in boys. After the break points, PD and ED increased with higher ages but, as ED increased more than PD, BMD and CT decreased significantly with higher ages. The decline in BMD was counteracted by the increase in bone size so that there was only a nonstatistically significant decrease in bone strength, estimated as Z and CSMI, from break point to age 90. The partial preservation of bone strength was more obvious in men than in women as the decline in BMD was higher in women than in men, while the expansion in PD was larger in men than in women. The sex difference in the normative FN bone strength data seems to be related to sex discrepancies in the development of both bone mass and geometrical parameters during both growth and adulthood.


Bone mass Femoral neck Hip strength analysis Geometry Normative data 


  1. 1.
    WHO (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, Weaver C (2000) Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int 11:985–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahlborg HG, Johnell O, Turner CH, Rannevik G, Karlsson MK (2003) Bone loss and bone size after menopause. N Engl J Med 349:327–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaptoge S, Beck TJ, Reeve J, Stone KL, Hillier TA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR (2008) Prediction of incident hip fracture risk by femur geometry variables measured by hip structural analysis in the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 23:1892–1904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duan Y, Beck TJ, Wang XF, Seeman E (2003) Structural and biomechanical basis of sexual dimorphism in femoral neck fragility has its origins in growth and aging. J Bone Miner Res 18:1766–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LaCroix AZ, Beck TJ, Cauley JA, Lewis CE, Bassford T, Jackson R, Wu G, Chen Z (2010) Hip structural geometry and incidence of hip fracture in postmenopausal women: what does it add to conventional bone mineral density? Osteoporos Int 21:919–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang H, Hu YQ, Zhang ZL (2011) Age trends for hip geometry in Chinese men and women and the association with femoral neck fracture. Osteoporos Int 22:2513–2522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd, Robb RA, Camp JJ, Atkinson EJ, Peterson JM, Rouleau PA, McCollough CH, Bouxsein ML, Khosla S (2004) Population-based study of age and sex differences in bone volumetric density, size, geometry, and structure at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 19:1945–1954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackowski SA, Kontulainen SA, Cooper DM, Lanovaz JL, Baxter-Jones AD (2011) The timing of BMD and geometric adaptation at the proximal femur from childhood to early adulthood in males and females: a longitudinal study. J Bone Miner Res 26:2753–2761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bachrach L (2008) Skeletal development in childhood and adolescence. In: Rosen C (ed) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, Washington, DC, pp 74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orwoll ES (2003) Toward an expanded understanding of the role of the periosteum in skeletal health. J Bone Miner Res 18:949–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beck TJ, Looker AC, Ruff CB, Sievanen H, Wahner HW (2000) 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 15:2297–2304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Warden KE, Scott WW Jr, Rao GU (1990) Predicting femoral neck strength from bone mineral data. A structural approach. Invest Radiol 25:6–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshikawa T, Turner CH, Peacock M, Slemenda CW, Weaver CM, Teegarden D, Markwardt P, Burr DB (1994) Geometric structure of the femoral neck measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 9:1053–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beck TJ, Oreskovic TL, Stone KL, Ruff CB, Ensrud K, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Cummings SR (2001) Structural adaptation to changing skeletal load in the progression toward hip fragility: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 16:1108–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crabtree N, Lunt M, Holt G, Kroger H, Burger H, Grazio S, Khaw KT, Lorenc RS, Nijs J, Stepan J, Falch JA, Miazgowski T, Raptou P, Pols HA, Dequeker J, Havelka S, Hoszowski K, Jajic I, Czekalski S, Lyritis G, Silman AJ, Reeve J (2000) Hip geometry, bone mineral distribution, and bone strength in European men and women: the EPOS study. Bone 27:151–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iki M, Dongmei N, Tamaki J, Sato Y, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H (2011) Age-specific reference values of hip geometric indices from a representative sample of the Japanese female population: Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Study. Osteoporos Int 22:1987–1996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janz KF, Gilmore JM, Levy SM, Letuchy EM, Burns TL, Beck TJ (2007) Physical activity and femoral neck bone strength during childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Bone 41:216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janz KF, Burns TL, Levy SM, Torner JC, Willing MC, Beck TJ, Gilmore JM, Marshall TA (2004) Everyday activity predicts bone geometry in children: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:1124–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forwood MR, Baxter-Jones AD, Beck TJ, Mirwald RL, Howard A, Bailey DA (2006) Physical activity and strength of the femoral neck during the adolescent growth spurt: a longitudinal analysis. Bone 38:576–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alwis G, Linden C, Ahlborg HG, Dencker M, Gardsell P, Karlsson MK (2008) A 2-year school-based exercise programme in pre-pubertal boys induces skeletal benefits in lumbar spine. Acta Paediatr 97:1564–1571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forwood MR, Bailey DA, Beck TJ, Mirwald RL, Baxter-Jones AD, Uusi-Rasi K (2004) Sexual dimorphism of the femoral neck during the adolescent growth spurt: a structural analysis. Bone 35:973–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karlsson MK, Gardsell P, Johnell O, Nilsson BE, Akesson K, Obrant KJ (1993) Bone mineral normative data in Malmo, Sweden: comparison with reference data and hip fracture incidence in other ethnic groups. Acta Orthop Scand 64:168–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duppe H, Gardsell P, Johnell O, Nilsson BE, Ringsberg K (1997) Bone mineral density, muscle strength and physical activity: a population-based study of 332 subjects aged 15–42 years. Acta Orthop Scand 68:97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sundberg M, Gardsell P, Johnell O, Ornstein E, Sernbo I (1998) Comparison of quantitative ultrasound measurements in calcaneus with DXA and SXA at other skeletal sites: a population-based study on 280 children aged 11–16 years. Osteoporos Int 8:410–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duke PM, Litt IF, Gross RT (1980) Adolescents’ self-assessment of sexual maturation. Pediatrics 66:918–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hind K, Burrows M (2007) Weight-bearing exercise and bone mineral accrual in children and adolescents: a review of controlled trials. Bone 40:14–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacKelvie KJ, Khan KM, McKay HA (2002) Is there a critical period for bone response to weight-bearing exercise in children and adolescents? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med 36:250–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN (2000) Permutation tests for join point regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med 19:335–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey DA, McKay HA, Mirwald RL, Crocker PR, Faulkner RA (1999) A six-year longitudinal study of the relationship of physical activity to bone mineral accrual in growing children: the University of Saskatchewan Bone Mineral Accrual Study. J Bone Miner Res 14:1672–1679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faulkner RA, Bailey DA, Drinkwater DT, McKay HA, Arnold C, Wilkinson AA (1996) Bone densitometry in Canadian children 8–17 years of age. Calcif Tissue Int 59:344–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee SH, Desai SS, Shetty G, Song HR, Lee SH, Hur CY, Lee JC (2007) Bone mineral density of proximal femur and spine in Korean children between 2 and 18 years of age. J Bone Miner Metab 25:423–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Augat P, Reeb H, Claes LE (1996) Prediction of fracture load at different skeletal sites by geometric properties of the cortical shell. J Bone Miner Res 11:1356–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith RW Jr, Walker RR (1964) Femoral expansion in aging women: implications for osteoporosis and fractures. Science 145:156–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruff CB, Hayes WC (1988) Sex differences in age-related remodeling of the femur and tibia. J Orthop Res 6:886–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rivadeneira F, Zillikens MC, De Laet CE, Hofman A, Uitterlinden AG, Beck TJ, Pols HA (2007) Femoral neck BMD is a strong predictor of hip fracture susceptibility in elderly men and women because it detects cortical bone instability: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 22:1781–1790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seeman E, Duan Y, Fong C, Edmonds J (2001) Fracture site-specific deficits in bone size and volumetric density in men with spine or hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res 16:120–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Duan Y, Parfitt A, Seeman E (1999) Vertebral bone mass, size, and volumetric density in women with spinal fractures. J Bone Miner Res 14:1796–1802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nordstrom P, Neovius M, Nordstrom A (2007) Early and rapid bone mineral density loss of the proximal femur in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:1902–1908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Travison TG, Beck TJ, Esche GR, Araujo AB, McKinlay JB (2008) Age trends in proximal femur geometry in men: variation by race and ethnicity. Osteoporos Int 19:277–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bacon WE, Maggi S, Looker A, Harris T, Nair CR, Giaconi J, Honkanen R, Ho SC, Peffers KA, Torring O, Gass R, Gonzalez N (1996) International comparison of hip fracture rates in 1988–89. Osteoporos Int 6:69–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beck T (2003) Measuring the structural strength of bones with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: principles, technical limitations, and future possibilities. Osteoporos Int 14(suppl 5):S81–S88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heinonen A, McKay HA, Whittall KP, Forster BB, Khan KM (2001) Muscle cross-sectional area is associated with specific site of bone in prepubertal girls: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Bone 29:388–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gayani Alwis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Caroline Karlsson
    • 1
  • Susanna Stenevi-Lundgren
    • 1
  • Björn E. Rosengren
    • 1
  • Magnus K. Karlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Orthopedics and Clinical SciencesLund University, Skåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
  2. 2.Teaching HospitalGalleSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations