Comparative Analysis of Preoperative and Postoperative Muscle Around Hip Joint by Computed Tomography Between Intertrochanteric Fracture and Femur Neck Fracture

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-65484/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Comparative Analysis of Preoperative and Postoperative Muscle Around Hip Joint by Computed Tomography Between Intertrochanteric Fracture and Femur Neck Fracture

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-65484/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background:

This study assessed the changes in hip muscles by comparing the preoperative and postoperative CT scan results between patients with intertrochanteric versus femoral neck fractures.

Methods:

48 patients who received surgical treatment for intertrochanteric or femoral neck fractures from February 2013 to February 2019 and underwent pelvic computed tomography(CT) preoperative and postoperatively aged 65 and older with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The subjects were divided into two groups: 26 patients with intertrochanteric fracture and 22 patients with femoral neck fracture. We measured the cross-sectional area(CSA) and attenuation of the gluteus medius(G.med), gluteus minimus(G.min), iliopsoas(IP), and rectus femoris(RF) on the contralateral side. Patient basic data were collected from medial records including sex, age, height, weight, BMI, BMD, Harris hip score (HHS), and length of follow-up until the final visit.

Results:

There was no significant difference in sex, age, height, weight, BMI, BMD, HHS, and length of follow-up until the final visit between two groups. The femoral neck fracture group had significantly larger CSA and cross-sectional area per weight(CSA/Wt) of the G.med and G.min(G.med CSA, CSA/wt preoperative 1995.29 vs 1713.64, 38.87 vs 32.74; postoperative 2144.98 vs 1815.56, 37.48 vs 32.78/G.min preoperative 745.22 vs 566.59, 14.32 vs 10.96; postoperative 764.39 vs 619.17, 14.78 vs 11.25). On the contrary, the intertrochanteric fracture group had significantly greater CSA and CSA/Wt of the IP and RF(IP preoperative 810.86 vs 661.88, 17.73 vs 9.42; postoperative 681.98 vs 571.32, 12.68 vs 9.88/RF preoperative 503.66 vs 386.72, 9.42 vs 7.23; postoperative 426.24 vs 349.31, 7.17 vs 5.23).

HHS related with function had no significant correlation with postoperative CSA and CSA/Wt. There was no significant difference in attenuation between two groups. All subjects had a significant decrease of muscle attenuation postoperatively.

Conclusions:

The CSA of the hip abductor(G.med and G.min) was significantly larger in the femoral neck fracture group, while the CSA of the hip flexor(IP and RF) was significantly higher in the intertrochanteric fracture group. Based on these findings, choosing the rehabilitation program suitable for the fracture site is expected to be beneficial in hip fracture rehabilitation.

Orthopedics

Intertrochanteric fracture

Femoral neck fracture

Sarcopenia

Computed tomography(CT)

The number of hip fracture patients continues to rise with an aging population. Surgical intervention is also increasingly applied in the treatment of hip fracture for improvement of the quality of life, pain relief, and prevention of complications associated with prolonged bed confinement.^1,2) Decline in muscle mass, lower muscular strength, and sarcopenia defined as low physical performance related with aging have emerged as a serious problem.^3,4) Sarcopenia is profoundly related with poor health status and high mortality and elderly patients with sarcopenia are not only at high risk of hip fracture^5–7), but also may have aggravated health conditions, leading to high mortality.^8,9)

Intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures are the most common hip fractures in elderly patients. These fractures are similar in fracture site, but different in location and direction of applied force. Moreover, in regards to the surgical treatment of choice, intertrochanteric fracture is usually treated with reduction and internal fixation such as intramedullary nailing, while femoral neck fracture is mainly treated with hip arthroplasty.

Previous studies on sarcopenia primarily used dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in the analysis.^10,11) Of these studies, no study has been performed comparing intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. In the comparison of the fractures, DEXA can provide rough estimation based on the amount of radiation absorbed, but the analysis on precise muscle mass and density of different muscles is impossible.¹²⁾ Furthermore, since injury mechanism at the time of fracture, the type and direction of the muscles involved and surgical options are different between intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures, the type of muscles hypertrophied and atrophied are predicted to be different. However, only a few studies have been conducted to compare the difference. The measurement of muscle mass and attenuation on the axial computed tomography(CT) scan has been reported to a good indicator for sarcopenia in previous literature.¹³⁾ Therefore, this study aimed to perform a comparative analysis on pre- and postoperative muscle mass between the intertrochanteric fracture and femoral neck fracture groups by accurately measuring muscle mass around the hip joint using CT scan.

Methods

1. Subjects

This study was performed after gaining institutional review board(IRB) approval (DAUHIRB-20-124) from investigators' institution. This study reviewed 97 patients who had postoperative pelvic CT scan among 700 patients who underwent surgery due to intertrochanteric or femoral neck fractures from February 2013 to February 2019. Of these, 42 patients who had bilateral hip surgery, ambulatory disability, neuromuscular disorder, or hemiparesis due to cerebrovascular disease were excluded from the analysis and a total of 48 patients were retrospectively reviewed among 90 patients aged 65 and older with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The subjects were divided into two groups: 26 patients in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 22 patients in the femoral neck fracture group. (Fig. 1)

2. Surgical Methods

All operations were performed by a single surgeon. In 26 patients with intertrochanteric fracture, adequate reduction obtained on a fracture table was preoperatively confirmed with C-arm radiography, and intramedullary nail insertion was performed using the PFNA-II nail system (Proximal femoral nail antirotation-II, Asian version, DePuy Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland). In 22 patients with femoral neck fracture, bipolar hip arthroplasty was conducted using a Bencox® hip stem (Corentec, Seoul, Korea) in a lateral position with modified Gibson approach.

3. Clinical and Radiological Analysis

The basic data of the patients were retrospectively reviewed based on medical records including sex, age, height, weight at the time of surgery and at the final follow-up, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), Harris hip score (HHS) related with function, and length of follow-up until the last visit. Axial CT images of the pelvis just below the sacroiliac (SI) joint and at the level of the lesser trochanter (LT) were used for radiographic analysis of the gluteus medius(G.med), gluteus minimus(G.min), rectus femoris(RF), and iliopsoas(IP) muscles. The Cross-sectional area(CSA) and density of the muscles were measured by drawing a line connecting the outer margin of the muscles on axial CT images using the PACS system (INFINITT PACS, version 3.0; INFINITT Healthcare Co., Seoul, Korea), expressed in mm² and Hounsfield units (HU). The CSAs of the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and iliopsoas were measured just below level of the SI joint and the CSA of the rectus femoris was measured at the level of the LT. The largest cross-sectional areas around those levels were measured (Fig. 2). Assuming that measurement errors could occur due to hematoma and swelling on the affected side of the pelvis, muscle CSA and density were preoperatively measured on the contralateral hip. The muscles were measured twice at a two-week interval by the same experienced surgeon, and the mean value was used.

4. Statistical Analysis

The CSA, cross-sectional area per weight (CSA/Wt, mm²/kg), and attenuation of each muscle were measured pre- and postoperatively, and the measured values were compared between the intertrochanteric fracture and femoral neck fracture groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Chi-square test was used comparing the two groups on sex. Independent t-test was conducted to test the difference between the two groups on age, BMI, BMD, HHS related with function, and length of follow-up until the last visit; and on CSA, cross-sectional area per weight (CSA/Wt, mm²/kg) and attenuation of each muscle. Paired t-test was done to test pre- and postoperative difference within a group. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Correlations of the CSA and cross-sectional area per weight (CSA/Wt, mm²/kg) with HHS related with function were analyzed using Pearson's correlation tests. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05.

1. Subjects

Of all 26 patients in the intertrochanteric fracture group, 6 (23.1%) were males and 20 (76.9%) were females. Of all 22 patients in the femoral neck fracture group, 9 (40.9%) were males and 13 (59.1%) were females. In chi-square analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The mean age was 79.8 (64–91) years in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 79.5 (68–93) years in the femoral neck fracture group. The average height was 156.6 (146–168) cm and 157.1 (148–170) cm in the intertrochanteric and femoral neck fracture groups, respectively. The average weight was 54.2 (38–77) kg and 52.8 (35–67) kg at the time of surgery, and 55.4 (34–80) kg and 54.2 (38–69) kg at the final follow-up in the intertrochanteric and femoral neck fracture groups, respectively. The mean BMI was 22.31 (15.98–32.34) and 21.32 (15.56–32.76) at the time of surgery, and 22.85 (14.15–38.05) and 21.98 (16.53–31.79) at the last follow-up in the intertrochanteric and femoral neck fracture groups, respectively. The mean BMD was − 2.94 (-1.9~-4.9) and − 2.91 (-1.3~-4.3) in the intertrochanteric and femoral neck fracture groups, respectively. The mean HHS was 82.65 (54.15–97.65) and 85.36 (51.3-93.65), and the mean HHS related with function was 48.69 (32–61) and 50.18 (32–65) at the final follow-up in the intertrochanteric and femoral neck fracture groups, respectively. The postoperative duration until the last follow-up was 20.23 (12–91) months in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 21.51(13–88) in the femoral neck fracture group. An independent t-test was performed to compare the means for two groups, but no statistically significant difference was exhibited (p > 0.05). (Table 1)

2. Cross-sectional area of muscles

The cross-sectional area of the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus was 1713.64 (1147.12-3167.34) mm² and 566.59 (337.67-1072.92) mm² in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 1815.56 (1157.47-2755.86) mm² and 619.97(379.23-1125.71) mm² in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 1815.56 (1249.01-3138.09) mm² and 619.17 (361.07-1095.83) mm² in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 2144.98 (1331.21-2946.68) mm² and 764.39 (328.97-1384.49) mm² in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. Both pre- and postoperative CSAs were significantly higher in the femoral neck fracture group (G.med preoperative p = 0.033, postoperative p = 0.028; G.min preoperative p = 0.002, postoperative p = 0.038). The CSA of the iliopsoas and rectus femoris was 810.86 (370.41-1543.30) mm² and 503.66 (304.52-802.49) mm² in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 661.88 (341.65-1175.15) mm² and 386.72 (246.23-515.72) mm² in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 681.98 (369.42-1313.32) mm² and 426.24 (181.27-666.21) mm² in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 571.32 (238.49-870.55) mm² and 349.31 (161.79-575.83) mm² in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. Both pre- and postoperative CSAs were significantly higher in the intertrochanteric fracture group (IP preoperative p = 0.036, postoperative p = 0.039; RF preoperative p = 0.041, postoperative p = 0.017). (Table 2)

The cross-sectional area/weight of the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus was 32.74 (19.24–58.62) mm^2/kg and 10.96 (5.19–25.85) mm^2/kg in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 38.87 (24.63–56.66) mm^2/kg and 14.32 (5.66–22.74) mm^2/kg in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 32.78 (24.27–53.22) mm^2/kg and11.25 (6.56–24.35) mm^2/kg in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 37.48 (27.78–49.94) mm^2/kg and 14.78 (7.79–23.07) mm^2/kg in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. Both pre- and postoperative measures were significantly higher in the femoral neck fracture group (G.med preoperative p = 0.011, postoperative p = 0.016; G.min preoperative p = 0.007, postoperative p = 0.001). The CSA/weight of the iliopsoas and rectus femoris was 17.73 (5.88–34.01) mm^2/kg and 9.42 (4.83–12.35) mm^2/kg in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 13.50 (6.82 ~ 24.55) mm^2/kg and 7.23 (5.00-11.46) mm^2/kg in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 12.68 (6.60-19.91) mm^2/kg and 7.17(4.53–10.58) mm^2/kg in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 9.88 (5.69–19.75) mm^2/kg and 5.23 (3.24–9.33) mm^2/kg in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. Both pre- and postoperative measures were significantly higher in the intertrochanteric fracture group (IP preoperative p = 0.016, postoperative p = 0.001; RF preoperative p = 0.014, postoperative p < 0.001). (Table 3) In the correlation analysis between postoperative CSA and HHS related with function, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.19, 0.20, 0.01, and 0.05 in the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, iliopsoas, and rectus femoris, respectively. All p-values were greater than 0.05, indicating no significant correlation. In the correlation analysis between postoperative cross-sectional area per weight (CSA/Wt, mm²/kg) and HHS related with function, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.18, -0.33, -0.21, and 0.27 in the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, iliopsoas, and rectus femoris, respectively. All p-values were larger than 0.05, showing no significant correlation. (Table 4)

3. Attenuation of muscles

The attenuation (Hounsfield unit, HU) of the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus was 32.19 (6–56) and 23.65 (4–38) in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 30.59 (11–61) and 17.36 (8–33) in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 23.54 (5–45) and 10.92 (3–23) in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 21.18 (4–36) and 11.09 (3–29) in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. No significant difference was found in pre- and postoperative attenuation between the two groups (G.med preoperative p = 0.693, postoperative p = 0.689; G.min preoperative p = 0.182, postoperative p = 0.972) A significant decrease in attenuation was shown after surgery in both groups (G. med intertrochanteric fracture group p = 0.005, femoral neck fracture group p = 0.011; G. min intertrochanteric fracture group p = 0.001, femoral neck fracture group p = 0.041). The attenuation of the iliopsoas and rectus femoris was 48.65 (12–71) and 45.38 (15–64) in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 44.55 (13–68) and 44.73 (17–62) in the femoral neck fracture group preoperatively; and 38.54 (11–52) and 36.00 (14–58) in the intertrochanteric fracture group and 35.09 (12–52) and 35.68 (13–55) in the femoral neck fracture group postoperatively. No significant difference was shown in pre- and postoperative attenuation between the two groups (IP preoperative p = 0.319, postoperative p = 0.417; RF preoperative p = 0.760, postoperative p = 0.936). A significant decrease in attenuation was demonstrated after surgery in both groups (IP intertrochanteric fracture group p = 0.006, femoral neck fracture group p = 0.034; RF intertrochanteric fracture group p = 0.005, femoral neck fracture group p = 0.002). (Table 5)

The pre- and postoperative attenuation of all 48 patients enrolled to the study was 31.46 (6–61) and 22.46 (4–45) in the gluteus medius; 20.77 (4–38) and 11.00 (3–29) in the gluteus minimus; 46.77 (12–71) and 36.96 (11–58) in the iliopsoas; and 45.08 (15–68) and 35.85 (13–58) in the rectus femoris, respectively. A significant reduction was shown in all muscles (p < 0.001). (Table 6)

Skeletal muscle mass and strength are inversely proportional to increasing age. The decline of skeletal muscle mass and strength with age are accelerated after 65 years of age and results in various social problems such as physical impairment, reduced quality of life, and an increase in mortality.¹⁴⁾ The socioeconomic burden of these problems has been raised as one of the serious concerns, and as a result, sarcopenia has recently gained much attention.^15,16) Sarcopenia can increase the risk of hip fracture, and cause dysphagia or voiding dysfunction due to muscle weakness.^17,18) These conditions are considered as indicators of frailty and the loss of independence.¹⁹⁾ Tatara²⁰⁾ and Ellman et al.²¹⁾ have suggested muscle force as a crucial factor for proper growth and preservation of the bony skeleton, and Ford et al.²²⁾ have reported the influence of imbalance of muscles around hip joint on the hip joint. However, few previous studies have been done to evaluate muscles around hip joint by dividing into two groups of intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures.

The conventional methods for measuring body composition include DEXA, bioelectrical impedance, CT, MRI, etc. Although DEXA and bioelectrical impedance analysis can be used in estimating the overall conditions of the skeleton, but those are not suitable for muscle-specific analysis. MRI allows a precise analysis of muscle condition and mass, attenuation, fatty infiltration around skeletal muscle, but cannot be used in patients with metallic prostheses. On the contrary, Mitsiopoulos et al.²³⁾ addressed that measurements from CT and the volumes of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue in cadavers were nearly the same. According to a report by Rasch et al.²⁴⁾, the use of CT scan allows simple circumscribing of large muscle bellies and minimizes measurement errors with easy identification of the bony landmarks of the pelvis.

Of all muscles around the hip joint, the gluteus medius serves a key role in abduction at hip joint, provides stability of the pelvis during a single-leg stance and exhibits Tredelenberg’s sign in case of insufficiency. ^25,26) Since the gluteus minimus aids the abduction similar to the gluteus medius in function, this muscle was included in the analysis. The iliopsoas muscle was also included because it serves as the prime muscle of hip flexion and has been considered a single indicator of sarcopenia,^27,28) contributing to stability of the lumbar spine that may cause problems such as HNP in cases of tightness or spasm.²⁹⁾ The rectus femoris was included in this study because this muscle crosses over both the hip and knee joint and maintains stability of the femur during walking and in case of weakness of rectus femoris, excessive knee extension may occur due to limitation of active knee extension.

In a recent study, Kim et al.³⁰⁾ have reported that the weakness of the iliopsoas and spine extensors is the major risk factor of hip fracture. Paganini et al.³¹⁾ and Chilibeck et al.³²⁾ have suggested that the strengthening of skeletal muscles through active exercise is effective in preventing hip fracture, increasing BMD and reducing the risk of falling. Gschwind et al.³³⁾ have addressed that hip fracture can be prevented by exercise that improves muscle balance and strength in the older population. However, no studies have been performed to determine which specific muscles need to be strengthened in rehabilitation for patients with intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. According to the results of this study, the CSA of hip abductors (gluteus medius and gluteus minimus) was significantly higher in the femoral neck fracture group, while the CSA of hip flexors (iliopsoas and rectus femoris) was significantly greater in the intertrochanteric fracture group. These findings are expected to be helpful in determining rehabilitation exercises appropriate for patients with different fracture types. No significant difference was shown in muscle attenuation between the two groups. However, a significant decrease in attenuation after surgery appears to be attributable to age-associated increase in muscle fat infiltration.

This study was limited in certain aspects. First, this comparative study was limited by the relatively small sample size. Second, the difference in the actual muscle function and power may present because assessment was done based on muscle CSA and attenuation, instead of accurately measuring the power of muscles at the hip joint in each patient. Finally, since preoperative ambulation ability and the overall function of the musculoskeletal system between the two groups were not fully controlled, bias may arise in the comparison of pre- and postoperative changes.

This study detected a significant difference in hip abductors and flexors on axial CT images between the intertrochanteric fracture and femoral neck fracture groups. The difference seems to be attributed from the type and direction of external forces applied to fracture occurrence. These findings demonstrate that the rehabilitation program for hip abductors and flexors respectively will be helpful for rehabilitation of patients with these fractures.

BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; HHS: Harris hip score; SI: sacroiliac; LT: lesser trochanter;

G.med: gluteus medius; G.min: gluteus minimus; RF: rectus femoris; IP: iliopsoas; CT: computed tomography; CSA: cross-sectional area

Acknowledgements : Not applicable

Authors’ contribution Conception and Design: SYJ, HJK, KTO.

Data analysis and interpretation: SYJ, HJK.

Manuscript preparation: SYJ, KTO.

Manuscript editing: SYJ, HJK, KTO.

Manuscript review: HJK.

Final approval of the version submitted: SYJ, HJK

Funding This study was financially supported by the Dong-A University research fund.

Availability of data and materials The data generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate The current study was performed in accordance with institutional review board approval from Dong-A university hospital (DAUHIRB-20-124).

Consent for publication Not applicable.

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ha YC, Park YG, Nam KW, Kim SR. Trend in hip fracture incidence and mortality in Korea: a prospective cohort study from 2002 to 2011. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:483–8.
Lloyd BD, Williamson DA, Singh NA, Hansen RD, Diamond TH, Finnegan TP, Allen BJ, Grady JN, Stavrinos TM, Smith EU, et al. Recurrent and injurious falls in the year following hip fracture: a prospective study of incidence and risk factors from the Sarcopenia and Hip Fracture study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64:599–609.
Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R, et al. Sarcopenia J Lab Clin Med. 2001;137:231–43.
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European working group on Sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23.
Landi F, Liperoti R, Russo A, et al. Sarcopenia as a risk factor for falls in elderly individuals: results from the ilSIRENTE study. Clin Nutr. 2012;31:652–8.
Hida T, Ishiguro N, Shimokata H, et al. High prevalence of sarcopenia and reduced leg muscle mass in Japanese patients immediately after a hip fracture. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013;13:413–20.
Yoo JI, Ha YC, Kwon HB, et al. High prevalence of sarcopenia in Korean patients after hip fracture: a case-control study. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31:1479–84.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146–56.
Cawthon PM, Marshall LM, Michael Y, et al. Frailty in older men: prevalence, progression, and relationship with mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:1216–23.
Chen LK, Liu LK, Woo J, et al. Sarcopenia in Asia: consensus report of the Asian working group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15:95–101.
Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69:547–558.
Petak S, Barbu CG, Yu EW, et al. The official positions of the international society for clinical densitometry: body composition analysis reporting. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16:508–19.
Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, et al. A practical and precise approach to quantification of body composition in cancer patients using computed tomography images acquired during routine care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33:997–1006.
Melton LJ 3rd, Khosla S, Crowson CS, O’Connor MK, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Eidemiology of sarcopenia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:625–30.
Vanitallie TB. Frailty in the elderly: contributions of sarcopenia and visceral protein depletion. Metabolism. 2003;52:22–6.
Melton LJ 3rd, Khosla S, Crowson CS, O’Connor MK, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Epidemiology of sarcopenia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:625–30.
Ney DM, Weiss JM, Kind AJ, Robbins J. Senescent swallowing: impact, strategies, and interventions. Nutr Clin Pract. 2009;24:395–413.
Pfisterer MH, Griffiths DJ, Schaefer W, Resnick NM. The effect of age on lower urinary tract function: a study in women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:405–12.
Frisoli A, Chaves PH, Ingham SJM, Fried LP. Severe osteopenia and osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty status in community-dwelling older women: results from the Women’s Health and Aging Study (WHAS) II. Bone. 2011;48:952–7.
Tatara AM, Lipner JH, Das R, et al. The role of muscle loading on bone (re)modeling at the developing enthesis. Heymann D, editor. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97375.
Ellman R, Spatz J, Cloutier A, Palme R, Christiansen BA, Bouxsein ML. Partial reductions in mechanical loading yield proportional changes in bone density, bone architecture, and muscle mass. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28(4):875–85.
Ford CA, Nowlan NC, Thomopoulos S, Killian ML. Effects of imbalanced muscle loading on hip joint development and maturation. J Orthop Res. 2017;35(5):1128–36.
Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, et al. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85(1):115–22.
Rasch A, Bystro¨m AH, Dal´en N, et al. Persisting muscle atrophy two years after replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(5):583–8. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.91B5.21477.
Steele KM, Seth A, Hicks JL, et al. Muscle contributions to support and progression during single-limb stance in crouch gait. J Biomech. 2010;43(11):2099–105.
Liu R, Wen X, Tong Z, et al. Changes of gluteus medius muscle in the adult patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:101.
Hanaoka M, Yasuno M, Ishiguro M, et al. Morphologic change of the psoas muscle as a surrogate marker of sarcopenia and predictor of complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32:847–56.
Peng PD, van Vledder MG, Tsai S, et al. Sarcopenia negatively impacts short-term outcomes in patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:439–46.
Penning L. Psoas muscle and lumbar spine stability: a concept uniting existing controversies. Critical review and hypothesis. Eur Spine J. 2000;9:577–85.
Kim KH, Lee JH, Lim EJ. Weak psoas and spine extensors potentially predispose to hip fracture. HIP International. 2020;1–5.
Paganini-Hill A, Chao A, Ross RK, et al. Exercise and other factors in the prevention of hip fracture: the Leisure World study. Epidemiology. 1991;2:16–25.
Chilibeck PD, Sale DG, Webber CE. Exercise and bone mineral density. Sports Med. 1995;19:103–22.
Gschwind YJ, Kressig RW, Lacroix A, et al. A best practice fall prevention exercise program to improve balance, strength/power, and psychosocial health in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:105.

Due to technical limitations, table 1 to 6 is only available as a download in the Supplemental Files section.

Table.pptx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparative Analysis of Preoperative and Postoperative Muscle Around Hip Joint by Computed Tomography Between Intertrochanteric Fracture and Femur Neck Fracture

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Backgrounds

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1