Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 138, Issue 12, pp 1653–1657 | Cite as

Bone density correlates with clinical outcomes after ankle fracture fixation

  • Stephen J. WarnerEmail author
  • Matthew R. Garner
  • Peter D. Fabricant
  • Dean G. Lorich
Orthopaedic Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

Osteoporosis and decreased bone density are known to increase fracture incidence and severity. Although much is known regarding the effects of bone density on fracture risk and the treatment options for prevention of fragility fractures, whether bone quality alters clinical outcomes after fracture fixation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether bone quality correlates with clinical outcomes after fracture fixation.

Materials and methods

A prospective database of all operatively treated ankle fractures by a single surgeon from 2003 to 2013 was used to identify patients. All patients included in the study had preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging of the injured ankle and postoperative CT imaging of the contralateral ankle. Hounsfield unit (HU) measurement values were determined by placing an elliptical region of interest confined to the cancellous metaphyseal region of the distal tibia and fibula. The primary and secondary clinical outcomes included Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores (FAOS) and ankle range of motion (ROM). Included patients had at least 12 months of clinical outcome data.

Results

Sixty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Comparison of HU values from the injured and contralateral side demonstrated almost perfect agreement (ICC(2,1) = 0.938), suggesting that HU values can be accurately measured in the setting of a fracture. Increased HU values of the injured distal tibia and fibula significantly correlated with improved outcomes in four of five FAOS domains, including pain, activities of daily living, sports, and quality of life (beta = 0.285–0.344; P ≤ 0.05 for all). Range of motion outcomes did not significantly correlate with HU values.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that decreased bone quality, as measured using preoperative CT, significantly correlates with inferior short-term clinical outcomes. These results have significant implications for integrating bone quality into treatment algorithms for fracture patients.

Keywords

Ankle fracture Outcomes Bone density Hounsfield units CT 

Notes

Funding

There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Unnanuntana A, Gladnick BP, Donnelly E, Lane JM (2010) The assessment of fracture risk. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:743–753.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen CJ (2005) Clinical practice. Postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 353:595–603.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp043801 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali AM, Saleh M, Eastell R et al (2006) Influence of bone quality on the strength of internal and external fixation of tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Res 24:2080–2086.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20270 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johanson N, Litrenta J, Zampini JM et al (2011) Surgical treatment options in patients with impaired bone quality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2237–2247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1838-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Link TM (2012) Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 263:3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2633201203 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eckstein F, Lochmüller E-M, Lill CA et al (2002) Bone strength at clinically relevant sites displays substantial heterogeneity and is best predicted from site-specific bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:162–171.  https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.1.162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groll O, Lochmüller EM, Bachmeier M et al (1999) Precision and intersite correlation of bone densitometry at the radius, tibia and femur with peripheral quantitative CT. Skelet Radiol 28:696–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schreiber JJ, Anderson P, Hsu WK (2014) Use of computed tomography for assessing bone mineral density. Neurosurg Focus 37:E4.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.5.FOCUS1483 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schreiber JJ, Gausden EB, Anderson PA et al (2015) Opportunistic osteoporosis screening—gleaning additional information from diagnostic wrist CT scans. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:1095–1100.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schreiber JJ, Anderson P, Rosas HG et al (2011) Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93:1057–1063.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Callréus M, McGuigan F, Akesson K (2013) Adverse effects of smoking on peak bone mass may be attenuated by higher body mass index in young female smokers. Calcif Tissue Int 93:517–525.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-013-9785-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JJ, Patel R, Biermann JS, Dougherty PJ (2013) The musculoskeletal effects of cigarette smoking. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:850–859.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08657-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meredith DS, Schreiber JJ, Taher F et al (2013) Lower preoperative Hounsfield unit measurements are associated with adjacent segment fracture after spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:415–418.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826ff084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schreiber JJ, Hughes AP, Taher F, Girardi FP (2014) An association can be found between Hounsfield units and success of lumbar spine fusion. HSS J 10:25–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-013-9367-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tingart MJ, Lehtinen J, Zurakowski D et al (2006) Proximal humeral fractures: regional differences in bone mineral density of the humeral head affect the fixation strength of cancellous screws. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:620–624.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gausden E, Garner MR, Fabricant PD et al (2017) Do clinical outcomes correlate with bone density after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2679-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen J. Warner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew R. Garner
    • 2
  • Peter D. Fabricant
    • 3
  • Dean G. Lorich
    • 4
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Trauma ServiceUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Trauma ServicePennsylvania State UniversityHersheyUSA
  3. 3.Pediatric Orthopaedic ServiceHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Orthopaedic Trauma ServiceHospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations