Advertisement

CT bone density analysis of low-impact proximal femur fractures using Hounsfield units

      Highlights

      • Routine 3D CT scans exhibit density differences at and distal to fracture sites on intra-patient comparison.
      • Inter-patient comparison shows density differences proximal and distal to fracture.
      • No density differences exist at fracture sites between cases and controls.
      • Every 50 HU decrease proximal to the fracture increases fracture odds by 74.4% (odds ratio = 1.744, 95% CI (1.291, 2.356)).

      Abstract

      Aim

      To quantify and compare changes in bone mineral density (BMD) via CT analysis in patients with and without spontaneous femoral fractures.

      Materials and methods

      Consecutive series of patients with CT imaging for spontaneous femoral fractures were compared to the age and gender matched controls. Bone density fixed region of interest measurements were obtained at the site of the fracture, proximally at the femoral head, and distally at the lesser trochanter in fracture patients and controls. Inter- and intrapatient comparisons were performed, including Chi-square and t-test analyses.

      Results

      24 spontaneous fractures and 25 controls were analyzed with no significant differences in mean age, gender, or body mass index. There were differences in the bone density between the fracture and contralateral non-fracture sides at (p = 0.0001) and distal (p < 0.0001) to the fracture. Proximal and distal bone density differences existed between case fracture and control non-fracture sites (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0001), and between the case non-fracture and control non-fracture sites (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). The reliability for measurements was good to excellent proximally (ICC = 0.63–0.87), moderate to excellent at the fracture site (ICC = 0.43–0.78), and fair to good distal (ICC = 0.24–0.68) to the fracture site.

      Conclusion

      Patients with spontaneous femoral fractures exhibit lower bone density than the asymptomatic controls. Bone insufficiency is best demonstrated proximal or distal to, rather than at the fracture site.

      Abbreviations:

      3D (three-dimensional), BMD (bone mineral density), BMI (body mass index), CI (confidence interval), CT (computed tomography), DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), EMR (electronic medical record), HU (Hounsfield units), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), QCT (quantitative computed tomography), SD (standard deviation)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Blume SW, Curtis JR. Medical costs of osteoporosis in the elderly Medicare population. Osteoporosis Int. 2011 Jun; 22(6): 1835–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1419-7. Epub 2010 Dec 17. PubMed PMID: 21165602; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3767374.

      2. Weycker D, Li X, Barron R, Bornheimer R, Chandler D. Hospitalizations for osteoporosis-related fractures: economic costs and clinical outcomes. Bone Rep. 2016 Jul 30; 5: 186–191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bonr.2016.07.005. eCollection 2016 Dec. PubMed PMID: 28580386; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5440958.

      3. Pisani P, Renna MD, Conversano F, Casciaro E, Muratore M, Quarta E, Paola MD, Casciaro S. Screening and early diagnosis of osteoporosis through X-ray and ultrasound based techniques. World J Radiol. 2013 Nov 28; 5(11): 398–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v5.i11.398. Review. PubMed PMID: 24349644; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3856332.

      4. Curtis JR, Carbone L, Cheng H, Hayes B, Laster A, Matthews R, Saag KG, Sepanski R, Tanner SB, Delzell E. Longitudinal trends in use of bone mass measurement among older Americans, 1999–2005. J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Jul; 23(7): 1061–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.080232. PubMed PMID: 18302495; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2497454.

      5. D'Elia G, Caracchini G, Cavalli L, Innocenti P. Bone fragility and imaging techniques. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2009 Sep; 6(3): 234–46. PubMed PMID:22461252; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2811356.

      6. Seo SH, Lee J, Park IH. Efficacy of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for evaluation of biomechanical properties: bone mineral density and actual bone strength. J Bone Metab. 2014 Aug; 21(3): 205–12. doi: 10.11005/jbm.2014.21.3.205. Epub 2014 Aug 31. PubMed PMID: 25247158; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4170083.

      7. Hillier TA, Stone KL, Bauer DC, Rizzo JH, Pedula KL, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Hochberg MC, Cummings SR. Evaluating the value of repeat bone mineral density measurement and prediction of fractures in older women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jan 22; 167(2): 155–60. PubMed PMID: 17242316.

      8. Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Pencina MJ, McLean RR, Cupples LA, Broe KE, Kiel DP. Repeat bone mineral density screening and prediction of hip and major osteoporotic fracture. JAMA. 2013 Sep 25; 310 (12): 1256–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.277817. PubMed PMID: 24065012; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC3903386.

      9. Gregson CL, Hardcastle SA, Cooper C, Tobias JH. Friend or foe: high bone mineral density on routine bone density scanning, a review of causes and management. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Jun; 52(6): 968–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket007. Epub 2013 Feb 27. Review. PubMed PMID: 23445662; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3651616.

      10. Genant HK, Engelke K, Prevrhal S. Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008 Jul; 47 Suppl 4: iv9–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken180. Review. PubMed PMID: 18556648; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2427166.

      11. Engelke K, Adams JE, Armbrecht G, Augat P, Bogado CE, Bouxsein ML, Felsenberg D, Ito M, Prevrhal S, Hans DB, Lewiecki EM. Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography and peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2008 Jan-Mar; 11(1): 123–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.010. PubMed PMID: 18442757.

      12. Li N, Li XM, Xu L, Sun WJ, Cheng XG, Tian W. Comparison of QCT and DXA: osteoporosis detection rates in postmenopausal women. Int J Endocrinol. 2013; 2013: 895474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/895474. Epub 2013 Mar 27. PubMed PMID:23606843; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3623474.

      13. Johnson CC, Gausden EB, Weiland AJ, Lane JM, Schreiber JJ. Using Hounsfield units to assess osteoporotic status on wrist computed tomography scans: comparison with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jul; 41(7): 767–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.04.016. Epub 2016 May 14. PubMed PMID: 27189150.

      14. Marinova M, Edon B, Wolter K, Katsimbari B, Schild HH, Strunk HM. Use of routine thoracic and abdominal computed tomography scans for assessing bone mineral density and detecting osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015; 31 (10): 1871–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2015.1074892. Epub 2015 Aug 26. PubMed PMID: 26308674.

      15. Adler RA. Management of Endocrine Disease: Atypical femoral fractures: risks and benefits of long-term treatment of osteoporosis with anti-resorptive therapy. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018 Mar; 178(3): R81-R87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-17-1002. Epub 2018 Jan 16. Review. PubMed PMID: 29339529.

      16. Odvina CV, Zerwekh JE, Rao DS, Maalouf N, Gottschalk FA, Pak CY. Severely suppressed bone turnover: a potential complication of alendronate therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar; 90(3): 1294–301. Epub 2004 Dec 14. PubMed PMID: 15598694.