Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1151–1156 | Cite as

Women and men with hip fractures have a longer femoral neck moment arm and greater impact load in a sideways fall

  • Q. WangEmail author
  • J. W. Teo
  • A. Ghasem-Zadeh
  • E. Seeman
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

In a case control study, we report that women and men with hip fractures have a longer moment arm of the force applied on the proximal femur during a sideways fall, a structural feature that may contribute to fracture risk. The impact load and its direction during a sideways fall onto the greater trochanter are partly determined by the geometry of the proximal femur. We hypothesized that the hip geometry in elderly with hip fractures produces a greater impact on the hip during a sideways fall.

Methods

We studied 41 female (77.2 ± 9.9 years) and 22 male (76.2 ± 12.1 years) patients with hip fractures and 40 female (85.7 ± 6.0 years) and 17 male (84.3 ± 10.1 years) controls. Hip geometry was analyzed on the nonfracture hip in patients and left hip in controls using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Results

There was no difference in areal bone mineral density (aBMD), hip axis length, femoral neck axis length, or neck-shaft angle between cases and controls. However, the moment arm of the force on the hip during a sideways fall was 7.3% and 9.5% longer resulting in 5.6% and 9.1% greater moment in such a fall in female and male cases relative to their respective controls independent of height and weight (all p < 0.056). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the moment arm length in a sideways fall was associated with increased risk of hip fracture in females (odds ratio = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.14–3.20 for each SD increase in moment arm length of sideways fall, p = 0.02) and males (odds ratio = 2.69, 95% CI, 1.19–6.09, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

A longer moment arm in the sideways fall increases the resultant force applied to the hip predisposing to hip fracture.

Keywords

Fracture Hip Hip axis length Moment arm length Sideways fall 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Nevitt MC, Cummings SR (1993) Type of fall and risk of hip and wrist fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures. The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:1226–1234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenspan SL, Myers ER, Kiel DP, Parker RA, Hayes WC, Resnick NM (1998) Fall direction, bone mineral density, and function: risk factors for hip fracture in frail nursing home elderly. Am J Med 104:539–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wei TS, Hu CH, Wang SH, Hwang KL (2001) Fall characteristics, functional mobility and bone mineral density as risk factors of hip fracture in the community-dwelling ambulatory elderly. Osteoporos Int 12:1050–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parkkari J, Kannus P, Palvanen M, Natri A, Vainio J, Aho H, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1999) Majority of hip fractures occur as a result of a fall and impact on the greater trochanter of the femur: a prospective controlled hip fracture study with 206 consecutive patients. Calcif Tissue Int 65:183–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Pressman A, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Hip axis length and osteoporotic fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 10:506–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alonso CG, Curiel MD, Carranza FH, Cano RP, Perez AD (2000) 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 11:714–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Pocock NA, Noakes KA, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA, Sambrook PN (1998) Femoral neck axis length, height loss and risk of hip fracture in males and females. Osteoporos Int 8:75–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G, Malavolta N (1999) Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Rradiol 72:729–733Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michelotti J, Clark J (1999) Femoral neck length and hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 14:1714–1720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pande I, O’Neill TW, Pritchard C, Scott DL, Woolf AD (2000) Bone mineral density, hip axis length and risk of hip fracture in men: results from the Cornwall Hip Fracture Study. Osteoporos Int 11:866–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crabtree NJ, Kroger H, Martin A, Pols HA, Lorenc R, Nijs J, Stepan JJ, Falch JA, Miazgowski T, Grazio S, Raptou P, Adams J, Collings A, Khaw KT, Rushton N, Lunt M, Dixon AK, Reeve J (2002) Improving risk assessment: hip geometry, bone mineral distribution and bone strength in hip fracture cases and controls. The EPOS study. European prospective osteoporosis study. Osteoporos Int 13:48–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Kaissi S, Pasco JA, Henry MJ, Panahi S, Nicholson JG, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA (2005) Femoral neck geometry and hip fracture risk: the Geelong osteoporosis study. Osteoporos Int 16:1299–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boonen S, Koutri R, Dequeker J, Aerssens J, Lowet G, Nijs J, Verbeke G, Lesaffre E, Geusens P (1995) Measurement of femoral geometry in type I and type II osteoporosis: differences in hip axis length consistent with heterogeneity in the pathogenesis of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 10:1908–1912PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 9:1053–1064PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kain ZN (2005) The legend of p-value. Anesth Analg 101:1454–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pasco JA, Seeman E, Henry MJ, Merriman EN, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA (2006) The population burden of fractures originates in women with osteopenia, not osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 17:1404–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rudman KE, Aspden RM, Meakin JR (2006) Compression or tension? The stress distribution in the proximal femur. Biomed Eng Online 5:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zebaze RM, Jones A, Knackstedt M, Maalouf G, Seeman E (2007) Construction of the femoral neck during growth determines its strength in old age. J Bone Miner Res 22:1055–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zebaze RM, Jones A, Welsh F, Knackstedt M, Seeman E (2005) Femoral neck shape and the spatial distribution of its mineral mass varies with its size: clinical and biomechanical implications. Bone 37:243–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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 366:129–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 20:213–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karlamangla AS, Barrett-Connor E, Young J, Greendale GA (2004) Hip fracture risk assessment using composite indices of femoral neck strength: the Rancho Bernardo study. Osteoporos Int 15:62–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng X, Li J, Lu Y, Keyak J, Lang T (2007) Proximal femoral density and geometry measurements by quantitative computed tomography: association with hip fracture. Bone 40:169–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bell KL, Loveridge N, Power J, Garrahan N, Stanton M, Lunt M, Meggitt BF, Reeve J (1999) Structure of the femoral neck in hip fracture: cortical bone loss in the inferoanterior to superoposterior axis. J Bone Miner Res 14:111–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim BT, Mosekilde L, Duan Y, Zhang XZ, Tornvig L, Thomsen JS, Seeman E (2003) The structural and hormonal basis of sex differences in peak appendicular bone strength in rats. J Bone Miner Res 18:150–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang XZ, Kalu DN, Erbas B, Hopper JL, Seeman E (1999) The effects of gonadectomy on bone size, mass, and volumetric density in growing rats are gender-, site-, and growth hormone-specific. J Bone Miner Res 14:802–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tabensky A, Duan Y, Edmonds J, Seeman E (2001) The contribution of reduced peak accrual of bone and age-related bone loss to osteoporosis at the spine and hip: insights from the daughters of women with vertebral or hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res 16:1101–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Wang XF, Duan Y, Beck TJ, Seeman E (2005) Varying contributions of growth and ageing to racial and sex differences in femoral neck structure and strength in old age. Bone 36:978–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Q. Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. W. Teo
    • 1
  • A. Ghasem-Zadeh
    • 1
  • E. Seeman
    • 1
  1. 1.Endocrine Centre, Department of Medicine/Austin HealthThe University of MelbourneHeidelberg WestAustralia
  2. 2.Endocrine CentreRepatriation Campus/Austin HealthHeidelberg WestAustralia

Personalised recommendations