Advertisement

Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

Hip geometry and its role in fracture: What do we know so far?

  • Rhonda A. Brownbill
  • Jasminka Z. Ilich
Article

Abstract

As the number of hip fractures continues to rise, finding better ways to identify people at risk becomes crucial. In the past decade, several measures of hip geometry have been studied as possible risk factors for hip fracture. Among them, hip axis length (HAL) shows the greatest promise for enhancing fracture risk assessment in the clinical setting, followed by neck shaft angle (NSA) and femoral neck width (FNW). Studies have shown that both age and/or a loss of body weight are associated with changes in some of the geometric parameters, which subsequently indicate the decrease in hip strength. The greater hip strength in black women and men resulting in a lower incidence of fractures compared with white women is also attributed to more favorable geometric parameters. Asian women, who have a lower incidence of fractures than white women, have a shorter HAL and a smaller NSA. In general, a longer HAL and a greater NSA and FNW all increase the risk of fracture, though controversies exist due to the use of different subject populations and measurement tools. Overall evidence suggests assessing hip geometry parameters can significantly improve the ability of identifying people at risk of fracture, but more development in measurement software and more research are necessary to make it applicable in clinical settings.

Keywords

Bone Mineral Density Femoral Neck Section Modulus Femoral Neck Width Femoral Neck Region 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    International Osteoporosis Foundation: The facts about osteoporosis and its impact. http://www.osteofound.org/ presscentre/factsheet.html. Accessed January, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alonso CG, Curiel MD, Carranza FH, et al.: Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fractures in men and women. Multicenter Project for Research in Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2002, 11:714–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergot C, Bousson V, Meunier A, et al.: Hip fracture risk and proximal femur geometry from DXA scans. Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:542–550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonen S, Koutri R, Dequeker J, et al.: 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 1995, 10:1908–1912.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crabtree NJ, Kroger H, Martin A, et al.: Improving risk assessment: hip geometry, bone mineral distribution, and bone strength in hip fracture cases and controls. The EPOS study. Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:48–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Partanen J, Jamsa T, Jalovaara P: Influence of the upper femur and pelvic geometry on the risk and type of hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1540–1546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Pocock NA, et al.: Femoral neck axis length, height loss, and risk of hip fracture in males and females. Osteoporos Int 1998, 8:75–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G, Malavolta N: Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 1999, 72:729–733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michelotti J, Clark J: Femoral neck length and hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 1999, 14:1714–1720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, et al.: Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1993, 8:1211–1217. Graphically illustrates hip fracture incidence in terms of the number of hip fractures per 1000 persons-years according to HAL and BMD.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faulkner KG, McClung M, Cummings SR: Automated evalution of hip axis length for predicting hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1065–1070.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brownbill RA, Lindsey C, Crncevic-Orlic, Ilich JZ: Dual hip bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: Geometry and effect of physical activity. Calcif Tissue Int 2003, In press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    GE Medical Systems, Lunar Corp: Bone Densitometry: Hip Axis Length. http:/www.gemedicalsystems.com/rad/bonedens/ apps/hal.html. Accessed January, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faulkner KG: Letter to the editor: hip axis length and osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:506–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phillips JR, Williams JF, Mellick RA: Prediction of the strength of the neck of femur from its radiological appearance. Biomed Eng 1975, 10:367–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beck TJ, Oreskovic TL, Stone SL, et al.: Structural adaptation to changing skeletal load in the progression toward hip fragility: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1108–1119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoshikawa T, Turner CH, Peacock M, et al.: Geometric structure of the femoral neck measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1053–1064.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakamura T, Tuner CH, Yoshikawa T, et al.: Do variations in hip geometry explain differences in hip fracture risk between Japanese and white Americans? J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1071–1076.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crabtree N, Lunt M, Holt G, et al.: Hip geometry, bone mineral distribution, and bone strength in European men and women: the EPOS study. Bone 2000, 27:151–159. This study gives an analysis of the precision of the Lunar version of hip strength analysis software. It also relates gender, age, and weight to hip strength and HAL.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Bissessur K, et al.: Age-related changes in female femoral neck geometry: implications for bone strength. Calcif Tissue Int 1993, 53:S41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beck TJ, Looker AC, Ruff CB, et al.: 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 2000, 15:2297–2304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bedogni G, Mussi C, Malavolti M et al.: Relationship between body composition and bone mineral content in young and elderly women. Ann Hum Biol 2002, 29:559–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khosla S, Atkinson EJ, Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd: Relationship between body composition and bone mass in women. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:857–863.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ilich-Ernst JZ, Brownbill RA, Ludemann MA, Fu R: Critical factors for bone health in women across the age span: how important is muscle mass? Medscape Women’s Health, eJournal, 7(3), 2002. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432910.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peacock M, Liu G, Carey M, et al.: Bone mass and structure at the hip in men and women over the age of 60 years. Osteoporos Int 1998, 8:231–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Theobald TM, Cauley JA, Gluer CC, et al.: Black-white differences in hip geometry. Osteoporos Int 1998, 8:61–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson DA, Barondess DA, Hendrix SL, Beck TJ: Cross-sectional geometry, bone strength, and bone mass in the proximal femur in black and white postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 2000, 15:1992–1997. Gives insight into why black women have lower hip fracture rates than white women in terms of differences in hip geometry and bone strength.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Looker AC, Beck TJ, Orwoll ES: Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry? J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1291–1299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pande I, O’Neil TW, Pritchard C, et al.: Bone mineral density, hip axis length and risk of hip fracture in men: results from the Cornwall hip fracture study. Osteoporosis Int 2000, 11:866–870. Only study assessing the relationship between HAL, BMD, and risk of hip fracture in men.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Scott WW Jr, et al.: Sex differences in geometry of the femoral neck with aging: a structural analysis of bone mineral data. Calcif Tissue Int 1992, 50:24–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nelson HD, Humphrey LL, Nygren P, et al.: Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: scientific review. JAMA 2002, 288:872–881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cauley JA, Black DM, Barrett-Connor E, et al.: Effect of hormone replacement therapy on clinical fractures and height loss: The Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS). Am J Med 2001, 110:442–450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beck TJ, Stone KL, Oreskovic TL, et al.: Effects of current and discontinued estrogen replacement therapy on hip structural geometry: The study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:2103–2110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisa L, et al.: Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:69–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhonda A. Brownbill
  • Jasminka Z. Ilich
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Health and Human Development, School of Allied HealthUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations