The Proximal Femoral Bone Geometry in Plain Radiographs

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, Department for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joseph-Stelzmann Strasse 24, 50931 Cologne, Germany- Cologne Center for Musculoskeletal Biomechanics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

2 University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, Department for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joseph-Stelzmann Strasse 24, 50931 Cologne, Germany

3 Vulpius Klinik, Department for hand surgery, Vulpiusstraße 29, 74906 Bad Rappenau, Germany

4 Vulpius Klinik, Department for hand surgery, Vulpiusstraße 29, 74906 Bad Rappenau, Germany - Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany

Abstract

Background: Osteoporosis represents the most common bone disease and has to be respected in planning total hip
replacement, especially against the background of increasing uncemented total hip replacement. In this context, the
radiographic geometry of the proximal femur got into focus and is controversially discussed.
The aim of the presented study was to find any difference regarding known indices for proximal femur bone geometry
between patients with high-grade osteoarthritis and patients suffering from a femoral neck fracture caused by low
impact trauma.
Methods: Retrospective matched-paired analysis of 100 plane pelvic radiographs from 50 patients who suffered from
high-grade hip osteoarthritis and 50 patients who suffered from femoral neck fracture was performed. Measurement of
Canal-Bone Ratio (CBR), Canal-Calcar Ratio (CCR), Mineral Cortical Index (MCI) and Canal Flare Index (CFI) were
performed.
Results: CBR was significantly higher in the fracture-group (0.45 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.41 +/- 0.08) (P-value= 0.008). Moreover,
the femoral thickness 10 cm below the trochanter minor [F] was significantly higher in the osteoarthritis-group (34.68
+/- 4.14 vs 32.11 +/- 3.43) (P-value 0.001).
Conclusion: In conclusion, patients with a femoral neck fracture demonstrated a higher CBR, which indicates a poorer
bone quality. In case of planning a THA, the CBR is an index which can easily be measured and can be seen as one
decision criterion in THA regarding fixation technique.
Level of evidence: III

Keywords

References

1. Hadji P, Klein S, Gothe H, Häussler B, Kless T, Schmidt
T, et al. The epidemiology of osteoporosis—Bone
Evaluation Study (BEST): an analysis of routine health
insurance data. Deutsches Ä􀇆 rzteblatt International.
2013;110(4):52.
2. Mäkinen TJ, Alm JJ, Laine H, Svedström E, Aro HT. The
incidence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in women
with hip osteoarthritis scheduled for cementless
total joint replacement. Bone. 2007; 40(4):1041-7.
3. Raisz LG, Rodan GA. Pathogenesis of osteoporosis.
Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North
America. 2003;32(1):15.
4. Grimberg A, Jansson V, Liebs T, Melsheimer O, Steinbrück
A. Endoprothesenregister Deutschland: Jahresbericht
2015. EPRD Deutsche Endoprothesenregister gGmbH:
Berlin, Germany. 2016.
5. Kärrholm J, Lindahl H, Malchau H., Mohaddes
M, Nemes S, Rogmark C et al. The Swedish Hip
Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2016.
6. Phedy P, Ismail HD, Hoo C, Djaja YP. Total hip
replacement: A meta-analysis to evaluate survival of
cemented, cementless and hybrid implants. World
journal of orthopedics. 2017;8(2):192.
7. Abdulkarim A, Ellanti P, Motterlini N, Fahey T, O’Byrne
JM. Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip
replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. Orthopedic reviews.
2013;5(1).
8. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Söderman
P. The Swedish total hip replacement register. JBJS.
2002;84(suppl_2):S2-0.
9. Nixon M, Taylor G, Sheldon P, Iqbal SJ, Harper W. Does
bone quality predict loosening of cemented total hip
replacements?. The Journal of bone and joint surgery.
British volume. 2007;89(10):1303-8.
10. Scanelli JA, Reiser GR, Sloboda JF, Moskal JT. Cemented
femoral component use in hip arthroplasty. JAAOSJournal
of the American Academy of Orthopaedic
Surgeons. 2019 27(4):119-27.
11. Baccaro LF, Conde DM, Costa-Paiva L, Pinto-
Neto AM. The epidemiology and management of
postmenopausal osteoporosis: a viewpoint from 
Brazil. Clinical interventions in aging. 2015;10:583.
12. Glowacki J, Hurwitz S, Thornhill TS, Kelly M, LeBoff
MS. Osteoporosis and vitamin-D deficiency among
postmenopausal women with osteoarthritis
undergoing total hip arthroplasty. JBJS. 2003;
85(12):2371-7.
13. Singh M, Nagrath AR, Maini PS. Change in trabecular
pattern of the upper end of the femur as an index to
osteoporosis. JBJS. 1970;52(3):457-67.
14. Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA,
Bognar B, Malluche HH. Structural and cellular
assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone.
1993;14(3):231-42.
15. Yeung Y, Chiu KY, Yau WP, Tang WM, Cheung WY, Ng TP.
Assessment of the proximal femoral morphology using
plain radiograph—can it predict the bone quality?. The
Journal of arthroplasty. 2006;21(4):508-13.
16. Warriner AH, Patkar NM, Curtis JR, Delzell E, Gary L,
Kilgore M, et al. Which fractures are most attributable
to osteoporosis?. Journal of clinical epidemiology.
2011;64(1):46-53.
17. Köse Ö􀇆 , Kiliçaslan Ö􀇆 F, Arik HO, Sarp Ü􀇆 , Toslak İ􀇚E, Uçar
M. Prediction of Osteoporosis through Radiographic
Assessment of Proximal Femoral Morphology and
Texture in Elderly; is it Valid and Reliable?. Turk
Osteoporoz Dergisi. 2015;21(2).
18. Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, Palermo L,
Glüer CC, Genant HK. Simple measurement of
femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of
osteoporotic fractures. Journal of bone and mineral
research. 1993;8(10):1211-7.
19. Brownbill RA, Ilich JZ. Hip geometry and its role
in fracture: what do we know so far?. Current
osteoporosis reports. 2003;1(1):25-31.
20. Gnudi S, Malavolta N, Testi D, Viceconti M. Differences
in proximal femur geometry distinguish vertebral from
femoral neck fractures in osteoporotic women. The
British Journal of Radiology. 2004;77(915):219-23.
21. Tawada K, Iguchi H, Tanaka N, Watanabe N, Murakami
S, Hasegawa S, et al. Is the canal flare index a reliable
means of estimation of canal shape? Measurement
of proximal femoral geometry by use of 3D models 
of the femur. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 2015;
20(3):498-506.
22. Sah AP, Thornhill TS, LeBoff MS, Glowacki J.
Correlation of plain radiographic indices of the hip
with quantitative bone mineral density. Osteoporosis
international. 2007;18(8):1119-26.
23. Maeda Y, Sugano N, Saito M, Yonenobu K. Comparison
of femoral morphology and bone mineral density
between femoral neck fractures and trochanteric
fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research®. 2011;469(3):884-9.
24. Wang Z, Bhattacharyya T. Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty
and total hip arthroplasty for femoral
neck fracture: a medicare cohort study. Journal of
orthopaedic trauma. 2017;31(5):260.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 8, Issue 6
November and December 2020
Pages 675-681

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 December 2019
  • Revise Date: 18 February 2020
  • Accept Date: 02 May 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics