4.6 Article

Comparison of Femoral Morphology and Bone Mineral Density between Femoral Neck Fractures and Trochanteric Fractures

Journal

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 469, Issue 3, Pages 884-889

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1529-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many studies that analyzed bone mineral density (BMD) and skeletal factors of hip fractures were based on uncalibrated radiographs or dual-energy xray absorptiometry (DXA). Spatial accuracy in measuring BMD and morphologic features of the femur with DXA is limited. This study investigated differences in BMD and morphologic features of the femur between two types of hip fractures using quantitative computed tomography (QCT). Forty patients with hip fractures with normal contralateral hips were selected for this study between 2003 and 2007 (trochanteric fracture, n = 18; femoral neck fracture, n = 22). Each patient underwent QCT of the bilateral femora using a calibration phantom. Using images of the intact contralateral femur, BMD measurements were made at the point of minimum femoral-neck cross-sectional area, middle of the intertrochanteric region, and center of the femoral head. QCT images also were used to measure morphologic features of the hip, including hip axis length, femoral neck axis length, neck-shaft angle, neck width, head offset, anteversion of the femoral neck, and cortical index at the femoral isthmus. No significant differences were found in trabecular BMD between groups in those three regions. Patients with trochanteric fractures showed a smaller neck shaft angle and smaller cortical index at the femoral canal isthmus compared with patients with femoral neck fractures. We conclude that severe osteoporosis with thinner cortical bone of the femoral diaphysis is seen more often in patients with trochanteric fracture than in patients with femoral neck fracture. Level IV, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available