Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of HU histogram analysis and BMD for proximal femoral fragility fracture assessment: a retrospective single-center case-control study.
Park, Sun-Young; Ha, Hong Il; Lee, Injae; Lim, Hyun Kyung.
Afiliación
  • Park SY; Department of Radiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22, Gwanpyeong-ro 170beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, 14068.
  • Ha HI; Department of Radiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22, Gwanpyeong-ro 170beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, 14068. ha.hongil@gmail.com.
  • Lee I; Department of Radiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22, Gwanpyeong-ro 170beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, 14068.
  • Lim HK; Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, 59, Daesagwan-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 04401.
Eur Radiol ; 32(3): 1448-1455, 2022 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34647175
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the feasibility of HU histogram analysis (HUHA) to assess proximal femoral fragility fractures with respect to BMD.

METHODS:

This retrospective study included 137 patients with femoral fragility fractures who underwent hip CT and 137 control patients without fractures who underwent abdominal CT between January 2018 and February 2019. HUHA was calculated with the 3D volume of interest from the femoral head to the lesser trochanter. HUHAfat (percentage of negative HU values) and HUHAbone (percentage of HU values ≥ 125 HU) were assumed to be fat and bone components, respectively. Statistical significance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Spearman correlation (ρ), and odds ratio.

RESULTS:

HUHAfat was strongly positively correlated (ρ = 0.56) and BMD was moderately negatively correlated with fragility fractures (ρ = - 0.37). AUC of HUHAfat (0.82, 95% CI [0.77, 0.87]) significantly differed from that of BMD (0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.75]) (p < .001). The cutoff value was 15.8% for HUHAfat (sensitivity 90.4%; specificity 67.7%) and 0.709 g/cm2 for BMD (sensitivity 87.5%; specificity 51.5%), with higher HUHAfat and lower BMD values indicating fragility fractures. The odds ratio of HUHAfat was 19.5 (95% CI [9.9, 38.2], p < .001), which was higher than that of BMD, 7.4 (95% CI [4.0, 13.6], p < .001).

CONCLUSION:

HUHAfat revealed better performance than BMD and demonstrated feasibility in assessing proximal femoral fragility fractures. KEY POINTS • HUHAfat showed a strong positive correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.56, p < .001), and BMD showed a moderate negative correlation (Spearman ρ = - 0.37, p < .001) with proximal femoral fragility fractures. • HUHAfat (AUC = 0.82) performed significantly better than BMD in assessing proximal femoral fragility fractures (AUC = 0.69) (p < .001). • The odds ratio of HUHAfat for proximal femoral fragility fractures was higher than that of BMD (19.5 and 7.4, respectively; p < .001).
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Fracturas del Fémur / Fracturas Osteoporóticas Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur Radiol Asunto de la revista: RADIOLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Fracturas del Fémur / Fracturas Osteoporóticas Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur Radiol Asunto de la revista: RADIOLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article