Display options
Cite
Kiebzak G, Sassard WR. Smaller Radius Width in Women With Distal Radius Fractures Compared to Women Without Fractures. Cureus. 2017;9(12):e1950doi: 10.7759/cureus.1950.
Kiebzak, G., & Sassard, W. R. (2017). Smaller Radius Width in Women With Distal Radius Fractures Compared to Women Without Fractures. Cureus, 9(12), e1950. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1950
Kiebzak, Gary, and Sassard, Walter R. "Smaller Radius Width in Women With Distal Radius Fractures Compared to Women Without Fractures." Cureus vol. 9,12 (2017): e1950. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1950
Kiebzak G, Sassard WR. Smaller Radius Width in Women With Distal Radius Fractures Compared to Women Without Fractures. Cureus. 2017 Dec 14;9(12):e1950. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1950. PMID: 29468105; PMCID: PMC5812524.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Cureus. 2017 Dec 14;9(12):e1950. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1950.

Smaller Radius Width in Women With Distal Radius Fractures Compared to Women Without Fractures.

Cureus

Gary Kiebzak, Walter R Sassard

Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Surgery, Nemours Children's Hospital.
  2. Orthopaedic Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital.

PMID: 29468105 PMCID: PMC5812524 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1950

Abstract

Introduction Bone mineral density (BMD) measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is typically used to assess fracture risk. However, other factors such as bone size and the forward momentum of a fall (a function of body size) can also potentially influence fracture risk, but are understudied. This report describes the characteristics of a cohort of Caucasian pre- and postmenopausal women with distal radius fractures (DRF) after falling onto an outstretched hand. Methods The fracture cohort comprised entries in an institutional review board-approved registry of study patients who had had DXA scans. For patients with DRF, the contralateral radius was scanned and BMD, T-scores (used to define bone status as normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic), and radius width were recorded. Generally, side-to-side (left-right) differences in bone size and BMD are small and, hence, the contralateral radius was considered a surrogate for bone status of the fractured radius. Apparently healthy women without fractures were used as race-, age-, and BMI-matched controls.   Results Premenopausal women < 49 years of age (mean age, 38 years) with DRF had significanty smaller radii width compared to matched controls. Mean radius BMD was in the normal range. As a group, the cohort was overweight based on mean BMI. Postmenopausal women > 50 years (mean age, 64 years) with DRF also had low radius width, but in contrast to the first group, this group had low peripheral and central BMD. Conclusions Women with DRF had contralateral and presumably fractured radii of bone width smaller than matched controls. As a group, these women were also overweight based on BMI. The smaller radius width may increase the risk for fracture irrespective of BMD, especially since larger body size would result in greater inertial force when falling while ambulating.

Keywords: bone width; dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; radius fracture

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Injury. 1996 Dec;27(10):687-9 - PubMed
  2. J Hand Ther. 2016 Apr-Jun;29(2):136-45 - PubMed
  3. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992 Oct;63(5):552-4 - PubMed
  4. J Bone Miner Res. 2000 Oct;15(10):2011-8 - PubMed
  5. J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Sep;22(9):1442-8 - PubMed
  6. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Jan;50(1):97-103 - PubMed
  7. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Mar;69(2):326-9 - PubMed
  8. Osteoporos Int. 2010 Jul;21(7):1161-9 - PubMed
  9. J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Dec;20(12):2090-6 - PubMed
  10. J Bone Miner Res. 1996 Dec;11(12):1981-8 - PubMed
  11. J Biomech. 1998 Dec;31(12):1169-76 - PubMed
  12. J Trauma. 1994 Jul;37(1):62-5 - PubMed
  13. Osteoporos Int. 1994 Nov;4(6):357-61 - PubMed
  14. J Biomech. 2009 Jan 5;42(1):22-8 - PubMed
  15. Am J Health Promot. 2007 May-Jun;21(5):460-8 - PubMed
  16. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Feb;72 (1):62-6 - PubMed
  17. J Bone Miner Res. 2001 Jul;16(7):1337-42 - PubMed
  18. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993 Nov;41(11):1226-34 - PubMed
  19. J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Feb;12(2):248-54 - PubMed
  20. Bone. 2006 Apr;38(4):595-602 - PubMed

Publication Types