Шаблоны LeoTheme для Joomla.
GavickPro Joomla шаблоны

Banner-Ortho

Original Article

Hip and Femoral Neck Morphometry In Correlation with Intertrochanteric FemurFracture In Elderly

Dewo P1. MD PhD, Nasrulloh M1.MD, Lanodiyu Z*1. MD, Magetsari R1. MD PhD

1Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Gadjah Mada/ Dr. Sardjito General Hospital,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia

*Corresponding author:  Dr. Zikrina Abyanti Lanodiyu MD, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Dr Sardjito General Hospital, Jalan Kesehatan no 1 Sekip Yogyakarta Indonesia, Tel: +62 81 22 77 20 25;
Fax: +62 274 55 31 43; Secr: +62 274 51 50 54; Email: zikrina.lanodiyu158@gmail.com

Submitted: 06-18-2015 Accepted: 09-24-2015  Published: 10-05-2015

Download PDF

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Article

 
Abstract

Introduction

Proximal femur fractures are the most common injury pattern in elderly and they were expected to rise significantly until 4.5 to 6.3 million worldwide by 2050. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between several hip and proximal femoral morphometry paramaters with the incidence and the severity of intertrochanteric femur fracture.

Materials and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted on consecutive series of 45 patients who were older than 60 years and diagnosed as closed intertrochanteric femur fracture. Equal number of healthy elderly people were enrolled for comparison. Anterior-posterior projection pelvis x-ray of the subjects were obtained and analysed for parameters, as follows: Femoral Neck Length (FNL), Femoral Neck Shaft Angle (FNSA), and Medial Offset (MO), Mid-Pelvis Caput Distance (MCD), Acetabulum-Acetabulum distance (AcAc), and Acetabulum-Head distance (AcH). The severity of fracture was determined by AO/OTA classification.

Results

There were 45 subjects in each categories with matched sex and singh index.Proximal femur morphometry (Longer FNL, larger FNSA, longer MO) were found to be significantly correlated (p 0.000) with the occurence of intertrochanteric femur fracture. However, they were not correlated with the severity of the fracture. Hip morphometry parameters (MCD, AcAc, and Ach) were found to have no correlation (p > 0.05) with the occurence of intertrochanetric femur fracture.
 
Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that proximal femur morphometry (MO, FNL, and FNSA) were significantly correlated with the incidence of intertrochanteric femur fracture in our study population.

Keywords: Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture; Hip Morphometry; Proximal Femur Morphometry

Introduction

Since the number of individuals older than 65 years is expected to double in 2040, several studies predict the prevalence of proximal femur fracture to rise significantly until 4.5 to 6.3 million worldwide by 2050 [1,2]. It become the most common injury pattern in patients older than 50 years and women has 3 times greater risk [3]. Anatomically, hip fracture is divided into 3 categories, i.e, femoral neck fracture, intertrochanteric femur fracture, and subtrochanteric femur fracture.

The incidence of hip fracture is associated with osteoporosis in older population. More than 250.000 hip fractures in US were said to have correlation with osteoporosis [4]. One of the methods to assess osteoporosis was introduced by Singh et al in 1970. Singh index can be used as one of the easy and rapid method to assess osteoporosis using radiographic imaging [5]. It was a classification based on the visibility of the trabecular types seen in the femoral neck based on the radiographic imaging.

Hip joint is a ball-socket joint that consist of pelvic acetabulum and femoral head. Its biomechanics are determined by proximal femur and acetabulum morphometry. The joint will form specific angle to achieve stable and congruent articulation [7]. Moreover, proximal femoral morphometry showed signifficant correlation with the incidence of fracture and osteoarthritis [8]. The inclincation angle that is formed by the femoral neck against the femoral shaft determines the effectivenes of abductor muscles, the length of lower extremity, and pressureon the hip joint [9].

We studied a group of subjects with intertrochanteric femur fracture and compared with a group of non fracture subjects with similiar characteristics to determine the correlation between several hip and proximal femoral morphometry paramaters with the incidence and the severity of intertrochanteric femur fracture.

Materials and Methods

This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted on consecutive series of patients with Indonesian Mongoloid race who were diagnosed as closed intertrochanteric femur fracture in Dr Sardjito general hospital Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The inclusion criterias were the patient shouldu be older than 60 years and the cases were foundfrom January 2012 to December 2013. Patients who were unable to walk actively or required walking aid before the fracture were excluded from the sample selection. For comparison, healthy subjects with similiar baseline characteristic were enrolled. Singh index was used as the parameter to assess the osteoporosis conditionbetween 2 groups. Sex-matched subjects were enrolled to achieve the homogenicity of the subjects.
 
Ortho Fig 9.1
Figure 1. The diagram of hip and proximal femur morphometry used in this study (Weidow et al., 2005).

Ortho Fig 9.2
Figure 2. The measurement of hip and proximal femur morphometry in this study.

Anterior-posterior projection pelvis x-ray of the subjects were analysed to measure the proximal femur morphometry, as follows: Femoral Neck Length (FNL), Femoral Neck Shaft Angle (FNSA), and Medial Offset (MO), and hip morphometry, as follows: Mid-Pelvis Caput Distance (MCD), Acetabulum-Acetabulum distance (AcAc), and Acetabulum-Head distance (AcH).

Ortho Fig 9.3
Figure 3. The severity of intertrochanteric femur fracture based on OA/OT classification (1990).

FNL was measured from the center point of the head femur until the basis of cervical femur, FNSA was defined as the angle that is formed by the intersection of the line of femoral neck and proximal femoral shaft. MCD is the distance between midpoint of the pelvis to the center of femoral head. MO is the distance between the center of femoral head to the deepest part of greater trochanter. AcAc was measured from the outer part of the acetabulum teardrop to the outer part contralaterally, while the AcH was measured from the outer part of the acetabulum to the center point of femoral head. The severity of fractures was determined by AO/OTA classification (Figure 3). Independent T test was performed as the statistical analysis to determine the variable differences between fracture and non fracture group. In addition, ANOVA and post hoc multivariate analysis were used to determine the correlation of variables based on the severity of the fracture.

Results

There were 45 elderly intertrochanteric femur fracture patients and the other 45 healthy elderly patients were met the criterias and enrolled in this study.The subjects in each categories showed similiar sex and Singh Index withp value of 1.000 and 0.832 respectively (table 1).

This study showed that proximal femur morphometry were found to be significantly correlated with the occurence of intertrochanteric femur fracture (table 2). Longer FNL, larger the angle of the femoral neck shaft, longer MO were seen in intertrochanteric femur fracture subjects (figure 4).

However, those 3 parameters were not significantly correlated with the severity of the intertrochanteric femur fracture based on ANOVA and post hoc multivariate analysis (table 3 and 4).
Ortho Table 9.1
 
Table 1. The characteristics of the subjects.

This study also showed that hip morphometry parameters (MCD, AcAc, and Ach) were found to have no difference statistically in the occurence of intertrochanteric femur fracture with p value more than 0.05 (table 2).

Ortho Table 9.2
Table 2. The correlation between FNL, FNSA, MO, MCD, AcAc, and AcH with intertrochanteric femur fracture.
 
Ortho Fig 4.4
 
Figure 4. Boxplots of the FNL, FNSA, and MO of the normal subjects compared with intertrochanteric femur fracture subjects.
 
Ortho Table 9.3
Table 3. Descriptive and ANOVA analysis of FNL, FNSA, and MO based on the severity of the fracture.
 
Ortho Table 9.4
Table 4. Post Hoc tukey analysis of FNL, FNSA, and MO based on the severity of the fracture.
 
Discussion

As mentioned before in the literature published by Cummings et al, the incidence of hip fractures were closely related to elderly population, ninety percent of hip fracture in elderly population was caused by fall. Fall in elderly that may result fracture consist of several factors. The fall that causes direct collision on the intertrochanteric area, insufficient protective mechanism, soft tissue surrounding trochanteric not adequate to muffle the energy of the falls, and weakening of bone strength may explain why hip fracture risk in elderly is higher [11].

This study showed that female population has higher incidence in the occurence of intertrochanteric femur fractures and these findings was similiar to another study10. Factors that may contribute and cannot be modified was age and female gender. In female population, osteoporosis happen shortly after menopouse where the estrogen level was decrease dramatically. Osteoporosis will increase the risk of fracture due to decrease in bone mass density [1].

Longer offset that was seen to be significantly correlated with the occurence of intertrochanteric femur fracture might be due to the direct collision on the trochanteric area where longer offset indicates the position of trochanter more laterally and more prone to direct impact [12]. Moreover, if the protective response is slower, hip may receive direct force from the fall. Elderly people move slower, and if the balance is off, they tend to fall into the lateral side where the collision will directly hit the greater trochanteric area [13]. More effective abductor muscle force arm can be achieved in longer offset resulting in larger force on the abductor muscle insertion site in greater trochanter. If there was sudden pulling of abductor muscle, the intertrochanter area will have to withstand a greater force.

Femoral neck shaft angle is important component in correlation with intertrochanteric femur fracture. When the angle is larger than 125, it can increase the weight that is received by the hip joint and the amount of muscle strength needed to withstand the body weight [7]. More valgus FNSA will increase the force at the femoral head which then forwarded into femoral neck and shaft. Intertrochanteric area which lies as transitional zone can be assumed as the place where the majority of the force was received. Moreover, with age, the bone trabeculae will decrease and it will affect the intertrochanteric area resistance against the force [14].

Longer femoral neck length has greater risk of fracture when load is given on the central axis [7]. On the contrary to our results, study by Karlsson et al showed that the difference may be due to different study subjects. Our study was only comprise of intertrochanteric femur fracture and not included other types of hip fractures [15].

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that proximal femur morphometry (MO, FNL, and FNSA) had significantly correlated with the incidence of intertrochanteric femur fracture in our study population.

A Conflict of Interest

All authors disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work.

Ethical Statement

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.
 

References

 References

1.Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Törnkvist H et al. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006, 88(11): 1469–1473.

2.Ottaviani G, Jaffe N.The epidemiology of osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat Res. 2009, 152: 3-13.

3.Boccadoro M, Pileri A. Diagnosis, prognosis, and standard treatment of multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1997, 11(1): 111-131.

4.Campanacci, M. Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors. New York: Springer-Verlag. 1999.

5.Flinkkilä T, Hyvönen P, Leppilahti J, Hämäläinen M . Pathological fractures of the humeral shaft. Ann Chir Gynaecol . 1998, 87 (4): 321–324.

6.Frassica FJ, Frassica DA. Evaluation and treatment of metastases to the humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003, 415(Suppl): S212–S218.

7.Dijkstra S, Stapert J, Boxma H, Wiggers T. Treatment of the pathological fractures of the humeral shaft due to bone metastases: a comparison of intramedullary locking nail and plate osteosynthesis with adjunctive bone cement. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996, 22(6): 621–626.

8.Lewallen RP, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH. Treatment of pathological fractures or impendinging fractures of the humerus with Rush rods and methylmethacrylate: experience with 55 cases in 54 patients. Clin Orthop. 1982, 166: 193–198.

9.Colyer RA. Surgical stabilization of pathological neoplastic fractures. Curr Probl Cancer.1986,10(3): 117–168.

10.Xin-ye N, Xiao-bin T, Chang-ran G, Da C. The prospect of carbon fiber implants in radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012, 13(4): 3821.

11.Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993, (286)pp. 241-246.

12.Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987, (214):160-164.

13.Durie BGM, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Cancer. 1975, 36(3): 842–854.

14.Gruber G, Zacherl M, Leithner A. Surgical treatment of pathologic fractures of the humerus and femur. Orthopäde. 2009, 38(4): 324-334.

15.Damron TA, Rock MG, Choudhury SN. A biomechanical analysis of prophylactic fixation for middle third humeral impending pathological fractures. Clin Orthop. 1999, 363: 240-248.

16.Piccioli A, Maccauro G, Rossi B, Scaramuzo L, Frenos F et al. Surgical treatment of pathologic fractures of humerus. Injury. 2010, 41(11):1112-1116.

17.Philip N. Collis, Travis E. Clegg, David Seligson. The invisible nail: A technique report of treatment of a pathological humerus fracture with a radiolucent intramedullary nail. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured. 2011, 42(4): 424–426.

18.Muckley T, Diefenbeck M, Sorkin AT. Results of the T2 humeral nailingsystem with special focus on compression interlocking. Injury. 2008, 39(3): 229-305.

19.Scholes SC, Unsworth A. Wear studies on the likely performance of CFR-PEEK/ CoCrMo for use as artificial joint bearing materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009, 20(1): 163–170.

20.Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007, 28(32): 4845–4869.

21.Caforio M, Perugia D, Colombo M, Calori GM, Maniscalco P et al. Preliminary experience with Piccolo Composite™, a radiolucent distal fibula plate, in ankle fractures. Injury. 2014, S36–S38.

Cite this article: Dewo P et al, Hip and Femoral neck Morphometry in Correlation with Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture in Elderly. JJ Ortho Rheum. 2015, 1(2):009.

Contact Us:
9600 GREAT HILLS
TRAIL # 150 W
AUSTIN, TEXAS
78759 ( TRAVIS COUNTY)
E-mail : info@jacobspublishers.com
Phone : 512-400-0398