The Relationship between Morphometry of The Proximal Femur Bone and The Type of Proximal Femur Bone Fracture in The Elderly Female Population at RSUP H. Adam Malik Medan from 2017 to 2022
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31282/joti.v7n2.130Keywords:
Fracture, Proximal femur, Morphometry , Hip jointAbstract
Background:
Fractures of the pelvic bone are frequently encountered in elderly patients and are often associated with increased mortality rates. At the moment, identifying osteoporosis as a risk factor for proximal femur fractures is the primary focus. The morphometry of the proximal femur can also be utilized to predict the risk factors for proximal femur fractures. This study was conducted to assess the relationship between proximal femur bone morphometry and proximal femur fractures in elderly women at H. Adam Malik General Teaching Hospital, Medan.
Material & Methods:
This study is an observational analytical research aimed at investigating the relationship between the morphometry of the proximal femur bone and the type of proximal femur bone fracture in an elderly female population. The study will adhere to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The morphometric variables measured in this study are hip axis length (HAL), femoral head diameter (FHD), femoral neck length (FNL), femoral neck diameter (FND), horizontal offset (HO), and femoral neck shaft angle (FNSA).
Result:
This study collected 90 samples, with 15 of them not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a final sample size of 75. Out of 75 research samples, the Hip Axis Length (HAL) has an Eta test value of 0.264. The Femoral Head Diameter (FHD) has an Eta test value of 0.162. The Femoral Neck Diameter (FND) has an Eta test value of 0.276. The Femoral Neck Length (FNL) has an Eta test value of 0.277. The Horizontal Offset (HO) has an Eta test value of 0.277. The Femoral Neck Shaft Angle (FNSA) has an Eta test value of 0.488.
Conclusion:
This study reports a weak correlation between the morphometry of hip axis length, femoral neck diameter, femoral neck length, femoral neck diameter, and horizontal offset of the proximal femur with proximal femur fractures. Furthermore, a moderate correlation was found between the morphometry of the femoral neck-shaft angle of the proximal femur and the type of proximal femur fracture.
Downloads
References
Vaseenon T, Luevitoonvechkij S, Namwongphrom S, Rojanasthien S. Proximal Femoral Bone Geometry in Osteoporotic Hip Fractures in Thailand. Vol. 98, J Med Assoc Thai. 2015.
Fajar JK, Taufan T, Syarif M, Azharuddin A. Hip geometry and femoral neck fractures: A meta-analysis. Vol. 13, Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd; 2018. p. 1–6
Kazemi SM, Qoreishy M, Keipourfard A, Mohammadreza ;, Sajjadi M, Shokraneh S, et al. Effects of Hip Geometry on Fracture Patterns of Proximal Femur [Internet]. Vol. 4, Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016.
Yang RS, Wang SS, Liu TK. Proximal Femoral Dimension in Elderly Chinese Women with Hip Fractures in Taiwan.
Sayit E, Guzel N, Sayit AT. Does Proximal Hip Geometry Affect Fracture Type in The Elderly Population? 2021; Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-859539/v1
Ci B, Jam B. Hip Geometry and Proximal Femoral Fractures among Elderly Filipino Women: A Single Centre Cross-Sectional Study. Malays Orthop J. 2022 Jul 1;16(2):70–7.
Han J, Hahn MH. Proximal Femoral Geometry as Fracture Risk Factor in Female Patients with Osteoporotic Hip Fracture. J Bone Metab. 2016;23(3):175.
Lima ALCL de A, Miranda SC, Vasconcelos HFO de. Radiographic anatomy of the proximal femur: femoral neck fracture vs. transtrochanteric fracture. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition). 2017 Nov;52(6):651–7.
Nayak L, Senapati S, Panda SK, Chinara PK. Morphometric study of proximal femur in fractured and nonfractured postmenopausal women. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2017 Apr 1;10(4):313–6.
Pires RES, Prata EF, Gibram AV, Santos LEN, Lourenco PRBDT, Belloti JC. RADIOGRAPHIC ANATOMY OF THE PROXIMAL FEMUR: CORRELATION WITH THE OCCURRENCE OF FRACTURES. Acta Orthop Bras. 2012;20(2):79–83.
