Bone mineral density distribution in the proximal femur and its relationship to morphologic factors in progressed unilateral hip osteoarthritis

Side-to-side differences in hip bone mineral density in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Accurately evaluating bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis (OA) is crucial for diagnosing osteoporosis and selecting implants for hip arthroplasty. Our goal was to measure the BMD differences between sides, examine contributing factors, and identify the optimal side for BMD assessment in these patients.

METHODS

We analyzed 108 women with unilateral hip OA. Bilateral hip BMD was assessed automatically through quantitative CT (QCT) utilizing a validated, deep-learning-based approach. We evaluated BMD variations between the OA and healthy hips across total, neck, and distal regions. To determine their contributions, we analyzed factors, including patient demographics, Crowe classification, Bombelli classification, knee OA status, hip functional score, and gluteal muscle volume and density. Furthermore, we examined how side-to-side BMD differences influenced osteoporosis diagnosis using T-scores based on QCT.

RESULTS

The average BMD on the OA side was 6.9 % lower in the total region, 14.5 % higher in the neck region, and 9.4 % lower in the distal region than on the healthy side. Contributing factors to the reduced BMD in the OA hip included younger age, Bombelli classification (atrophic type), and significant gluteal muscle atrophy. Diagnoses from the OA side revealed lower sensitivity (61 %) than those from the healthy side (88 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis on one side alone yields a more precise osteoporosis diagnosis from the healthy side. Nonetheless, bilateral BMD assessment remains crucial, particularly in younger individuals and those with atrophic OA types. Although based on QCT, our findings support bilateral analysis by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for these patients.

Are there associations between hip geometry and bone quality? An analysis on 3074 adults from a general population

INTRODUCTION

Patients with reduced bone mineral density and altered hip geometry are susceptible for hip pathologies. Knowledge on associations between bone properties and hip geometric parameters might facilitate identification of patients at risk for hip pathologies. The aim of the present study was to identify associations of bone properties assessed by quantitative ultrasound (QUS) at the heel and hip geometric parameters like center-edge angle (CE), neck-shaft angle (NSA) and alpha angle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hip geometric parameters (CE, NSA and alpha angle) of 3074 participants from the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania were assessed on magnetic resonance imaging. QUS was performed on both calcanei providing broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound (SOS) and stiffness-index. Based on the stiffness-index the individual osteoporotic fracture risk (low, moderate or high) was determined. Associations between QUS-based and hip geometric parameters were calculated in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, body height and weight. Interactions of QUS markers with age and sex on hip geometric parameters were tested.

RESULTS

Significant inverse associations between BUA (β = - 0.068), SOS (β = - 0.024) as well as stiffness-index (β = - 0.056) and CE were present, while fracture risk was positively associated with CE (β for high = 1.28 and moderate = 2.54 vs. low fracture risk). Interactions between BUA and sex as well as between SOS and age were detected in the models for CE. Furthermore, there was an inverse relation between fracture risk and NSA that was restricted to the moderate risk (β for moderate vs. low fracture risk = - 0.60). There were no significant associations between QUS parameters and alpha angle.

CONCLUSIONS

In the general population, several associations between QUS-based bone properties or fracture risk and hip geometry are present. Less dysplastic hips had a lower stiffness-index and a higher fracture risk, whereas more valgus hips had a lower fracture risk.

Establishing a Total Hip T-Score Threshold to Measure Contralateral Hip Bone Mineral Density: Avoiding Missed Diagnosis of Osteoporosis

Bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip is routinely measured unilaterally, but can differ between left and right. This study aimed to establish total hip T-score thresholds for measuring contralateral hip BMD, to avoid missing the diagnosis of osteoporosis. In 4914 participants (2709 females) in the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study, BMD of both hips and lumbar spine (L1-L4) was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using a GE Lunar Prodigy Pro densitometer. Least significant change (LSC) was calculated according to International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommendations. For participants whose left-right total hip BMD difference exceeded LSC, the 95th percentile of the difference in T-score was calculated, then added to -2.5 (the cut-off for osteoporosis) to derive T-score thresholds for measuring contralateral hip to avoid a missed diagnosis in 95% of individuals. Participant mean age (±SD) was 57.4 ± 5.8 years; total hip T-score was 0.7 ± 0.1 in males and -0.2 ± 1.1 in females. Left and right total hip BMD were highly correlated (r = 0.943 for males, 0.959 for females), but in 56.2% of males and 50.0% of females, the left-right difference exceeded the LSC of 0.026 g/cm². In these participants, the 95th percentile of difference in T-score between two hips was 0.872 in males and 0.742 in females. This gave T-score thresholds for measuring contralateral total hip BMD of -1.6 (males) and -1.8 (females). When total hip T-score is between -1.6 and -2.5 (males), or between -1.8 and -2.5 (females), measuring contralateral hip BMD could avoid a missed diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Operator-Related Errors and Pitfalls in Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry: How to Recognize and Avoid Them

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most common modality for quantitative measurements of bone mineral density. Nevertheless, errors related to this exam are still very common, and may significantly impact on the final diagnosis and therapy. Operator-related errors may occur during each DXA step and can be related to wrong patient positioning, error in the acquisition process or in the scan analysis. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guide on how to recognize such errors in spine and hip DXA scan and how to avoid them, also presenting some of the most common artifacts encountered in clinical practice.