Left-right Differences in the Proximal Femur's Strength of Post-menopausal Women: a Multicentric Finite Element Study

Overview

Journal Osteoporos Int

Specialties Endocrinology
Orthopedics

Date 2015 Nov 19

PMID 26576543

Citations 2

Authors

F Taddei

C Falcinelli

L Balistreri

P Henys

F Baruffaldi

S Sigurdsson

V Gudnason

T B Harris

R Dietzel

G Armbrecht

S Boutroy

E Schileo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Unlabelled: The strength of both femurs was estimated in 198 post-menopausal women through subject-specific finite element models. Important random differences between contralateral femurs were found in a significant number of subjects, pointing to the usefulness of further studies to understand if strength-based classification of patients at risk of fracture can be affected by laterality issues.

Introduction: Significant, although small, differences exist in mineral density and anatomy of contralateral proximal femurs. These differences, and their combined effect, may result in a side difference in femurs' strength. However, this has never been tested on a large sample of a homogenous population.

Methods: The strength of both femurs was estimated in 198 post-menopausal women through CT-derived finite element models, built using a validated procedure, in sideways fall conditions. The impact of the resulting asymmetry on the classification of subjects at risk of fracture was analysed.

Results: The small difference observed between sides (the right femur on average 4 % stronger than the left) was statistically significant but mechanically negligible. In contrast, higher random differences (absolute difference between sides with respect to mean value) were found: on average close to 15 % (compared to 9.2 % for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) alone), with high scatter among the subjects. When using a threshold-based classification, the right and left femurs were discordant up to over 20 % of cases (K always lower than 0.60) but the left femur was concordant (mean K = 0.84) with the minimum strength between right and left.

Conclusion: Considering both femurs may be important when trying to classify subjects at risk of failure with strength estimates. Future studies including fracture assessment would be necessary to quantify the real impact.

Citing Articles

Comparison of the Right and Left Femur Bone Mineral Densities in Postmenopausal Women.

Kim S, Na Y, Ko M, Park J, Yoon H, Song J J Menopausal Med. 2024; 29(3):112-118.

PMID: 38230594 PMC: 10796208. DOI: 10.6118/jmm.23021.

Are CT-Based Finite Element Model Predictions of Femoral Bone Strength Clinically Useful?.

Viceconti M, Qasim M, Bhattacharya P, Li X Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2018; 16(3):216-223.

PMID: 29656377 PMC: 5945796. DOI: 10.1007/s11914-018-0438-8.

References

Bayraktar H, Morgan E, Niebur G, Morris G, Wong E, Keaveny T . Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech. 2003; 37(1):27-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00257-4. View

Grassi L, Schileo E, Taddei F, Zani L, Juszczyk M, Cristofolini L . Accuracy of finite element predictions in sideways load configurations for the proximal human femur. J Biomech. 2011; 45(2):394-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.10.019. View

Lang T, Sigurdsson S, Karlsdottir G, Oskarsdottir D, Sigmarsdottir A, Chengshi J . Age-related loss of proximal femoral strength in elderly men and women: the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility Study--Reykjavik. Bone. 2011; 50(3):743-8. PMC: 3278586. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.12.001. View

Harris T, Launer L, Eiriksdottir G, Kjartansson O, Jonsson P, Sigurdsson G . Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study: multidisciplinary applied phenomics. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 165(9):1076-87. PMC: 2723948. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwk115. View

Young E, Gebhart J, Cooperman D, Ahn N . Are the left and right proximal femurs symmetric?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 471(5):1593-601. PMC: 3613562. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2704-x. View

Amin S, Kopperdhal D, Melton 3rd L, Achenbach S, Therneau T, Riggs B . Association of hip strength estimates by finite-element analysis with fractures in women and men. J Bone Miner Res. 2011; 26(7):1593-600. PMC: 3201782. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.347. View

Pierre M, Zurakowski D, Nazarian A, Hauser-Kara D, Snyder B . Assessment of the bilateral asymmetry of human femurs based on physical, densitometric, and structural rigidity characteristics. J Biomech. 2010; 43(11):2228-36. PMC: 4407690. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.032. View

Schileo E, Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M . Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. J Biomech. 2007; 41(2):356-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.09.009. View

Schileo E, Balistreri L, Grassi L, Cristofolini L, Taddei F . To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?. J Biomech. 2014; 47(14):3531-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08.024. View

10.

Khoo B, Brown K, Cann C, Zhu K, Henzell S, Low V . Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and T scores. Osteoporos Int. 2008; 20(9):1539-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-008-0820-y. View

11.

Wainwright S, Marshall L, Ensrud K, Cauley J, Black D, Hillier T . Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90(5):2787-93. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-1568. View

12.

Pinilla T, Boardman K, Bouxsein M, Myers E, Hayes W . Impact direction from a fall influences the failure load of the proximal femur as much as age-related bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int. 1996; 58(4):231-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF02508641. View

13.

Taddei F, Pancanti A, Viceconti M . An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys. 2003; 26(1):61-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(03)00138-3. View

14.

Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J . Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 2001; 34(7):859-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00040-9. View

15.

Pakdel A, Robert N, Fialkov J, Maloul A, Whyne C . Generalized method for computation of true thickness and x-ray intensity information in highly blurred sub-millimeter bone features in clinical CT images. Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57(23):8099-116. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/23/8099. View

16.

Bouxsein M . Determinants of skeletal fragility. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005; 19(6):897-911. DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.07.004. View

17.

Bonnick S, Nichols D, Sanborn C, Payne S, Moen S, Heiss C . Right and left proximal femur analyses: is there a need to do both?. Calcif Tissue Int. 1996; 58(5):307-10. DOI: 10.1007/BF02509376. View

18.

Petley G, Taylor P, Murrills A, Dennison E, Pearson G, Cooper C . An investigation of the diagnostic value of bilateral femoral neck bone mineral density measurements. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(8):675-9. DOI: 10.1007/s001980070065. View

19.

Falcinelli C, Schileo E, Balistreri L, Baruffaldi F, Bordini B, Viceconti M . Multiple loading conditions analysis can improve the association between finite element bone strength estimates and proximal femur fractures: a preliminary study in elderly women. Bone. 2014; 67:71-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2014.06.038. View

20.

Faulkner K, Gluer C, Grampp S, Genant H . Cross-calibration of liquid and solid QCT calibration standards: corrections to the UCSF normative data. Osteoporos Int. 1993; 3(1):36-42. DOI: 10.1007/BF01623175. View