This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gnudi, S Articles by Fiumi, N Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gnudi, S Articles by Fiumi, N

Bone density and geometry in assessing hip fracture risk in post-menopausal women

Modulo Dipartimentale di Medicina Interna, Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy

Correspondence: Dr Saverio Gnudi, Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy. E-mail: saverio.gnudi{at}ior.it

We used femoral neck structural parameters (FNSPs), calculated from bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of the femoral neck by dual X-ray absorptiometry, to discriminate osteoporotic fractures of the proximal femur in post-menopausal women. We compared 1646 women without fracture and 429 women with hip fractures, including 273 with femoral neck (FN) and 156 with trochanter (TR) fractures. The association between the studied parameters and the fractures was modelled using multiple logistic regression, and included age, height and weight. Fracture-predicted probability (FPP) was also calculated for each predictor tested. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas with their standard errors (SEs) were calculated for the fracture status, having the calculated FPP as a test variable. The areas were compared by the Hanley–McNeil test. Hip fracture had lower BMD, cross-sectional area (CSA), section modulus (SM) and cortical thickness (CT), and higher buckling ratio (BR), than controls. To the same extent as FN BMD, BR best predicted the risk for each fracture, showing ROC curve areas of 0.809 (SE 0.011) for hip fracture, 0.789 (SE 0.014) for FN fracture, and 0.848 (SE 0.016) for TR fracture. The association of BR with fracture risk did not differ from that of FN BMD, which has a ROC curve area of 0.801 (SE 0.011) for hip fracture, 0.778 (SE 0.014) for FN fracture, and 0.852 (SE 0.016) for TR fracture. Both FN BMD and BR predicted TR fracture significantly better than they did FN fracture. FNSPs, although interesting in understanding the biomechanics of bone fragility, do not appear to add diagnostic value to the simple measurement of BMD.