Skip to main content

Comparison of femur stiffness measured from DXA and QCT for assessment of hip fracture risk

Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism volume 37, pages 342–350 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Femur stiffness, for example axial and bending stiffness, integrates both geometric and material information of the bone, and thus can be an effective indicator of bone strength and hip fracture risk. Femur stiffness is ideally measured from quantitative computed tomography (QCT), but QCT is not recommended for routine clinical use due to the public concern about exposure to high-dosage radiation. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently the primary imaging modality in clinic. However, DXA is two-dimensional and it is not clear whether DXA-estimated stiffness has adequate accuracy to replace its QCT counterpart for clinical application. This study investigated the accuracy of femur stiffness (axial and bending) estimated from CTXA (computed tomography X-ray absorptiometry) and DXA against those directly measured from QCT. Proximal-femur QCT and DXA from 67 subjects were acquired. For each femur, the QCT dataset was projected into CTXA using CTXA-Hip (Mindways Software, Inc., USA). Femur stiffness at the femoral neck and intertrochanter were then calculated from QCT, CTXA and DXA, respectively, and different elasticity-density relationships were considered in the calculation. Pearson correlations between QCT and CTXA/DXA measured stiffness were studied. The results showed that there were strong correlations between QCT and CTXA derived stiffness, although the correlations were affected by the adopted elasticity-density relationship. Correlations between QCT and DXA derived stiffness were much less strong, mainly caused by the inconsistence of femur orientation in QCT projection and in DXA positioning. Our preliminary clinical study showed that femur stiffness had slightly better performance than femur geometry in discrimination of hip fracture cases from controls.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Boonen S, Autier P, Barette M, Vanderschueren D, Lips P, Haentjens P (2004) Functional outcome and quality of life following hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective controlled study. Osteoporos Int 15:87–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brunner LC, Eshilian-Oates L, Kuo TY (2003) Hip fractures in adults. Am Fam Physician 67:537–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abrahamsen B, van Staa T, Ariely R, Olson M, Cooper C (2009) Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporos Int 20:1633–1650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Jimenez AB, Rodriguez P, Serra JA (2008) Epidemiology of hip fracture in the elderly in Spain. Bone 42:278–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB (2009) Incidence and Mortality of Hip Fractures in the United States. J Am Med Assoc 302:1573–1579

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett-Connor E, Siris ES, Wehren LE, Miller PD, Abbott TA, Berger ML, Santora AC, Sherwood LM (2005) Osteoporosis and fracture risk in women of different ethnic groups. J Bone Miner Res 20:185–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cranney A, Jamal SA, Tsang JF, Josse GR, Leslie WD (2007) Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ 177:575–580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McClung MR (2005) The relationship between bone mineral density and fracture risk. Curr Osteoporos Rep 3:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cefalu CA (2004) Is bone mineral density predictive of fracture risk reduction? Curr Med Res Opin 20:341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Unnanuntana A, Gladnick BP, Donnelly E, Lane JM (2010) The assessment of fracture risk. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:743–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beck TJ (2007) Extending DXA beyond bone mineral density: understanding hip structure analysis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 5:49–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 25:6–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:1053–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mochizuki T, Yano K, Ikari K, Kawakami K, Hiroshima R, Koenuma N, Ishibashi M, Shirahata T (2016) Hip structure analysis by DXA of teriparatide treatment: a 24-month follow-up clinical study. J Orthop 13:414–418

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 15:2297–2304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramamurthi K, Ahmad O, Engelke K, Taylor RH, Zhu K, Gustafsson S, Prince RL, Wilson KE (2012) An in vivo comparison of hip structure analysis (HSA) with measurements obtained by QCT. Osteoporos Int 23:543–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayhew P, Kaptoge S, Loveridge N, Power J, Kroger HP, Parker M, Reeve J (2004) Discrimination between cases of hip fracture and controls is improved by hip structural analysis compared to areal bone mineral density. An ex vivo study of the femoral neck. Bone 34:352–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ahlborg HG, Nguyen ND, Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA (2005) Contribution of hip strength indices to hip fracture risk in elderly men and women. J Bone Miner Res 20:1820–1827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 23:1892–1904

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Timoshenko S, Goodier JN (1951) Theory of elasticity. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wight JK, MacGregor JG (2012) REINFORCED CONCRETE—mechanics and design. Pearson, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hartsuijker C, Welleman JW (2007) Engineering mechanics. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjólfsson S, Viceconti M (2008) Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech 23:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Borders S, Petersen KR, Orne D (1977) Prediction of bending strength of long bones from measurements of bending stiffness and bone mineral content. J Biomed Eng 99:40–44

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Ford CM, Hayes WC (1994) Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomech 27:1137–1146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yeni YN, Dong XN, Fyhrie DP, Les CM (2004) The dependence between the strength and stiffness of cancellous and cortical bone tissue for tension and compression: extension of a unifying principle. Biomed Mater Eng 14:303–310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ritchie RO, Koester KJ, Ionova S, Yao W, Lane NE, Ager JW III (2008) Measurement of the toughness of bone: a tutorial with special reference to small animal studies. Bone 43:798–812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmad O, Ramamurthi K, Bouxsein ML, Engelke K, Wilson KE, Taylor RH (2009) Evaluation of 3D structural properties of the proximal femur using multiple 2D DXA images and a statistical atlas. J Clin Densitom 12:111–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ohnaru K, Sone T, Tanaka K, Akagi K, Ju Y-I, Choi H-J, Tomomitsu T, Fukunaga M (2013) Hip structural analysis: a comparison of DXA with CT in postmenopausal Japanese women. Springerplus 2:331

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Prevrhal S, Shepherd JA, Faulkner KG, Gaither KW, Black DM, Lang TF (2008) Comparison of DXA hip structural analysis with volumetric QCT. J Clin Densitom 12:232–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Engelke K, Lang T, Khosla S, Qin L, Zysset P, Leslie WD, Shepherd JA, Schousboe JT (2015) Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the hip in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2015 ISCD official positions—part I. J Clin Densitom 18:338–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Adams JE (2013) Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 9:28–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lekamwasam S, Lenora RSJ (2003) Effect of leg rotation on hip bone mineral density measurements. J Clin Densitom 6:331–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goh JC, Low SL, Bose K (1995) Effect of femoral rotation on bone mineral density measurements with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 57:340–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Khoo BC, Brown K, Cann C, Zhu K, Henzell S, Low V, Gustafsson S, Price RI, Prince RL (2009) Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and t scores. Osteoporos Int 20:1539–1545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cann CE, Adams JE, Brown JK, Brett AD (2014) CTXA hip—an extension of classical DXA measurements using quantitative CT. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Li B, Aspden RM (1997) Composition and mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the femoral head of patients with osteoporosis or osteoarthritis. J Bone Miner Res 12:641–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM (2003) Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 36:897–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dalstra M, Huiskes R, Odgaard A, van Erning L (1993) Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech 26:523–535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Currey JD (1969) The relationship between the stiffness and the mineral content of bone. J Biomech 2:477–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Currey JD (1969) The mechanical consequences of variation in the mineral content of bone. J Biomech 2:1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Barak MM, Currey JD, Weiner S, Shahar R (2009) Are tensile and compressive young’s moduli of compact bone different? J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2:51–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Luo Y (2018) Empirical functions for conversion of femur areal and volumetric bone mineral density. J Biomed Biol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0394-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Martin RB, Burr DB (1984) Non-invasive measurement of long bone cross-sectional moment of inertia by photon absorptiometry. J Biomech 17:195–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Danielson ME, Beck TJ, Karlamangla AS, Greendale GA, Atkinson EJ, Lian Y, Khaled AS, Keaveny TM, Kopperdahl D, Ruppert K, Greenspan S, Vuga M, Cauley JA (2013) A comparison of DXA and CT based methods for estimating the strength of the femoral neck in post-menopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24:1379–1388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Knowles NK, Reeves JM, Ferreira LM (2016) Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) derived bone mineral density (BMD) in finite element studies: a review of the literature. J Exp Orthop 3:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Luo Y (2017) Image-based multilevel biomechanical modeling for fall-induced hip fracture. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The reported research has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Manitoba Health Research Council (MHRC) in Canada, which are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to Winnipeg Health Science Centre for providing the QCT and DXA images used in this study.

Funding

Funding was provided by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant no: 37098) and Research Manitoba (Grant no: 37807).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, 75A Chancellor’s Circle, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

    Yunhua Luo & Huijuan Yang

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, 75A Chancellor’s Circle, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

    Yunhua Luo

Authors
  1. Yunhua Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huijuan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yunhua Luo.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The use of medical images in this study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Manitoba, Canada.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors had any personal or financial conflicts of interest.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, Y., Yang, H. Comparison of femur stiffness measured from DXA and QCT for assessment of hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Metab 37, 342–350 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-018-0926-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-018-0926-z

Keywords

  • Hip fracture risk
  • Cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI)
  • Femur axial and bending stiffness
  • Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
  • Computed tomography X-ray absorptiometry (CTXA)