[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Log in

A method for assessment of the shape of the proximal femur and its relationship to osteoporotic hip fracture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The shape of the proximal femur has been demonstrated to be important in the occurrence of fractures of the femoral neck. Unfortunately, multiple geometric measurements frequently used to describe this shape are highly correlated. A new method, active shape modeling (ASM) has been developed to quantify the morphology of the femur. This describes the shape in terms of orthogonal modes of variation that, consequently, are all independent. To test this method, digitized standard pelvic radiographs were obtained from 26 women who had suffered a hip fracture and compared with images from 24 age-matched controls with no fracture. All subjects also had their bone mineral density (BMD) measured at five sites using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. An ASM was developed and principal components analysis used to identify the modes which best described the shape. Discriminant analysis was used to determine which variable, or combination of variables, was best able to discriminate between the groups. ASM alone correctly identified 74% of the individuals and placed them in the appropriate group. Only one of the BMD values (Ward’s triangle) achieved a higher value (82%). A combination of Ward’s triangle BMD and ASM improved the accuracy to 90%. Geometric variables used in this study were weaker, correctly classifying less than 60% of the study group. Logistic regression showed that after adjustment for age, body mass index, and BMD, the ASM data was still independently associated with hip fracture (odds ratio (OR)=1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 3.11). The odds ratio was calculated relative to a 10% increase in the probability of belonging to the fracture group. Though these initial results were obtained from a limited data set, this study shows that ASM may be a powerful method to help identify individuals at risk of a hip fracture in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1a–d
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Michelotti J, Clark J (1999) Femoral neck length and hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 1410:1714–1720

    Google Scholar 

  2. Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, PalermoL, Glüer C-C, Genant HK (1993) Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 810:1211–1217

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boonen S, Koutri R, Dequeker J, Aerssens J, Lowet G, Nijs J, Verbeke G, Lesaffre E, Geusens P (1995) Measurement of femoral geometry in type-I and type-II osteoporosis: differences in hip axis length consistent with heterogeneity in the pathogenesis of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1012:1908–1912

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G, Malavolta N (1999) Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 72860:729–733

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alonso CG, Diaz MD, Carranza FH, Cano RP, Perez AD, and The Multicenter Project for Research in Osteoporosis (2000) Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Osteoporos Int 11:714–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Testi D, Cappello A, Chiari L, Viceconti M, Gnudi S (2001) Comparison of logistic and Bayesian classifiers for evaluating the risk of femoral neck fracture in osteoporotic patients. Med Biol Eng 39:633–637

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Peacock M, Liu G, Carey M, Ambrosius W, Turner CH, Hui S, Johnston CC (1998) Bone mass and structure at the hip in men and women over the age of 60 years. Osteoporos Int 8:231–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J (1995) Active shape models: their training and application. Comput Vis Image Understand 611:38–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D (1987) Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vision 14:321–331

    Google Scholar 

  10. Smyth PP, Taylor CJ, Adams JE (1999) Vertebral shape: automatic measurement with active shape models. Radiology 211:571–578

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cootes TF, Hill A, Taylor CJ, Haslam J (1994) Use of active shape models for locating structures in medical images. Image Vis Comput 12:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ (2001) Statistical models of appearance for medical image analysis and computer vision. Proceedings of SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) 43221:236–248

    Google Scholar 

  13. Efford ND (1993) Knowledge-based segmentation and feature analysis of hand and wrist radiographs. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers 1905:596–608

  14. Behiels G, Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P (2001) Evaluation of image features and search strategies for segmentation of bone structures in radiographs using active shape models. Med Image Anal 6:47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gregory JS, Testi D, Undrill PE, Aspden RM (2001) The shape of the proximal femur is a major factor in osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 12[Suppl 2]:S6

  16. Stewart A, Black A, Robins SP, Reid DM (1999) Bone density and bone turnover in patients with osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. J Rheumatol 263:622–626

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bland JM (2000) An introduction to medical statistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  18. Metz CE, Shen JH, Kronman HB, Wang PL (1991) CLABROC. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  19. Metz CE, Wang PL, Kronman HB (1984). A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. Inf Process Med Imaging 432–445

  20. Allolio B (1999) Risk factors for hip fracture not related to bone mass and their therapeutic implications. Osteoporos Int 9[Suppl 2]:S9–S16

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank The PPP Foundation and the Arthritis Research Campaign for funding this study and the MRC for a Senior Fellowship for R.M.A. We are grateful to Mr G. Turner for expert technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Aspden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gregory, J.S., Testi, D., Stewart, A. et al. A method for assessment of the shape of the proximal femur and its relationship to osteoporotic hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15, 5–11 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1451-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1451-y

Keywords

Navigation