Evidence Hub

Spatial Differences in the Distribution of Bone Between Femoral Neck and Trochanteric Fractures

Yu A, Carballido-Gamio J, Wang L, Lang TF, Su Y, Wu X, Wang M, Wei J et al.

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2017

93 participants

Abstract

There is little knowledge about the spatial distribution differences in volumetric bone mineral density and cortical bone structure at the proximal femur between femoral neck fractures and trochanteric fractures. In this case-control study, a total of 93 women with fragility hip fractures, 72 with femoral neck fractures (mean ± SD age: 70.6 ± 12.7 years) and 21 with trochanteric fractures (75.6 ± 9.3 years), and 50 control subjects (63.7 ± 7.0 years) were included for the comparisons. Differences in the spatial distributions of volumetric bone mineral density, cortical bone thickness, cortical volumetric bone mineral density, and volumetric bone mineral density in a layer adjacent to the endosteal surface were investigated using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and surface-based statistical parametric mapping (SPM). We compared these spatial distributions between controls and both types of fracture, and between the two types of fracture. Using VBM, we found spatially heterogeneous volumetric bone mineral density differences between control subjects and subjects with hip fracture that varied by fracture type. Interestingly, femoral neck fracture subjects, but not subjects with trochanteric fracture, showed significantly lower volumetric bone mineral density in the superior aspect of the femoral neck compared with controls. Using surface-based SPM, we found that compared with controls, both fracture types showed thinner cortices in regions in agreement with the type of fracture.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 93 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free