
==== Front
J Bone Metab
J Bone Metab
Journal of Bone Metabolism
2287-6375
2287-7029
The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research

10.11005/jbm.2024.31.3.228
jbm-2024-31-3-228
Original Article
Bone Mineral Density and Clinical Outcome after Ankle Fracture
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6764-9929
Kang Hyunseong
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0257-0277
Kim Ho-Hyup
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-9425
Lim Chaemoon
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Korea
Corresponding author: Chaemoon Lim, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jeju National University Hospital, 15 Aran 13-gil, Jeju 63241, Korea, Tel: +82-64-717-1690, Fax: +82-64-717-2714, E-mail: eric2550@hanmail.net
8 2024
31 8 2024
31 3 228235
14 5 2024
17 6 2024
21 6 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background

No gold standard exists for bone mineral density (BMD) measurement of the ankle. This study aimed to determine the correlation between bone density using Hounsfield units (HU) based on computed tomography (CT) and BMD using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as well as to evaluate the correlation between HU and clinical outcome of ankle fracture.

Methods

Fifty-one patients aged ≥65 years who underwent surgical treatment for trimalleolus or bimalleolus ankle fractures were included. The HU were measured at the distal tibia metaphyseal region approximately 1 cm proximal to the plafond on the axial images of preoperative CT. BMD was measured using DXA within one year before the injury. The clinical outcome was evaluated according to the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS).

Results

Although the HU of an osteoporosis group was lower than that of a non-osteoporosis group, we observed no significant difference between the two groups. The mean HU significantly correlated with the lumbar and total lumbar spine BMD using DXA. Increased HU significantly correlated with improved clinical outcomes in three of five FAOS subscales: symptoms, pain, activity of daily living (ADL), and quality of life (QOL). In a linear regression analysis adjusted for age and body mass index, increased HU significantly correlated with improved clinical outcomes in three of five FAOS subscales: symptoms, pain, ADL, and QOL.

Conclusions

The correlations between bone density using HU and BMD and those between HU and the clinical outcome were confirmed in ankle fractures. The HU of preoperative CT might provide valuable information for predicting postoperative clinical outcomes.

Ankle fractures
Bone density
Osteoporosis
==== Body
pmcGRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The frequency of osteoporotic fractures increases as a population ages. As a result, the socioeconomic cost of preventing and treating osteoporotic fractures are continuously increasing.[1,2] Proximal femur, vertebral body compression, and distal radius fractures are the most representative osteoporotic fractures, and the correlation between these fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) is well-known in many studies.[2–4] In contrast, although ankle fracture is common in patients aged >50 years, there is relatively little evidence on whether ankle fracture can be considered an osteoporotic fracture.[5,6] Ankle fractures are more closely related to trauma and body mass index (BMI) rather than BMD.[5]

However, the frequency of ankle fractures caused by low energy injury is increasing in postmenopausal women diagnosed with osteoporosis.[7,8] Among older patients with ankle fractures, only 58% reported satisfactory results from surgery.[9] Moreover, there is high possibility of poor clinical outcome, such as nonunion, malunion, infection, and wound problem.[9,10] Decreased BMD and bone quality change were reported in older patients with ankle fractures.[11,12] Accurate analysis of bone density and appropriate treatment may be necessary in older patients with ankle fractures.

Currently, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered a gold standard for BMD measurement.[13] However, DXA mainly measures central BMD in the proximal femur and lumbar spine, not in distal regions, such as the foot and ankle.[14] Several studies have not found an association between ankle fractures and central BMD measurement using DXA in the proximal femur and lumbar spine.[15] However, other studies reported decreased BMD and change in bone quality in elderly patients with ankle fractures.[11] In a recent meta-analysis, the BMD of older patients with ankle fractures was related to low BMD at the proximal femur, and this association appeared to be weaker than that for osteoporosis-related fractures, such as the hip, spine, and distal radius.[16] Currently, there is no gold standard for measuring ankle BMD.

Computed tomography (CT) is frequently used to evaluate fractures, and to establish the treatment plan before operation in ankle fracture. Patterson et al. [17] reported that there was a significant association between the cortical thickness measured using CT and BMD measured using DXA. Schreiber et al. [18] used the Hounsfield units (HU; a standard linear attenuation coefficient of a tissue) to evaluate bone density as a surrogate maker for BMD. Additionally, several studies reported that HU measurement using CT was correlated with BMD measurement using DXA in several anatomical regions.[19,20]

This study aimed to determine the correlation between bone density measurement using HU based on preoperative CT images and BMD measurement using DXA and to evaluate the correlation between HU and clinical outcomes in ankle fracture.

METHODS

This study was approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations (Declaration of Helsinki). The requirement for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board because of the retrospective nature of the study.

1. Patients

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent surgical treatment for bimalleolus or trimalleolus ankle fractures between January 2016 and December 2021. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥65 years old; (2) low energy trauma; (3) preoperative CT image; and (4) BMD measurement using DXA within one year before injury. Patients who had high energy trauma, polytrauma, or open fracture (N=3), neurologic impairment (N=1), or follow-up periods of <1 year (N=5) were excluded. Finally, 51 patients were enrolled in the study (Fig. 1). Demographic characteristics, such as, age at operation, sex, BMI, smoking, diabetes, mechanism of injury, and follow-up periods were evaluated. The bimalleolus or trimalleolus ankle fractures were classified according to the Lauge-Hansen classification or Denis-Weber classification.

2. Hounsfield units (HU)

The patients were placed in the supine position with fully extended knee joints and neutrally positioned ankle joints for preoperative CT using a 64-layer CT scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Scanning parameters were 1.0 mm layer thickness and 0.6 mm reconstruction interval. Image files were obtained using the INFINIT program (INFINITT, Seoul, Korea) from a high-resolution medial picture archiving communication system (PACS; IMPAX; Agfa Healthcare, Mortsel, Belgium). The HU was measured at the distal tibia metaphyseal region approximately 1 cm proximal to the plafond on axial images. If the epiphyseal plate was located at the level of 1 cm above the plafond or the fracture fragment was so large that it was impossible to measure the HU at the level of 1 cm above the plafond, the HU was measured above the level of 1 cm above the plafond. By raising one or two cut on the CT axial image, the measurement of HU was possible without the influence of the fracture fragment and epiphyseal plate. The largest possible elliptical region of the distal tibia metaphysis was drawn on the PACS system, except the fracture area and cortical margin to prevent volume averaging (Fig. 2). Three axial images were obtained from the lowest CT axial image without the influence of the fracture fragment and epiphyseal plate by raising one or two cut on the CT axial image. The HU from three axial images were averaged to generate a mean HU value. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the radiographic measurements, and an agreement of 0.75 was considered excellent.[21]

3. DXA

DXA scans were conducted at the proximal femur and lumbar spine using the Horizon-W DXA scanner (Hologic Inc., Bedford, MA, USA). Bone mass density (g/cm2), T score, and Z score were obtained using DXA in all the patients. To evaluate the correlations between DXA and HU, the patients were required to have a complete DXA scan within one year before ankle CT. According to the T score, patients with T score −2.5 or less were classified into an osteoporosis group, and other patients were classified into a non-osteoporosis group.

4. Surgical technique

All of the surgeries were performed under spinal anesthesia. All the fractures were treated using an injury-specific method according to the injury pattern. Associated lateral, medial, and/or posterior malleolus was treated with open reduction and internal fixation, according to standard principles, which included internal fixation of the fibular and posterior malleolus fractures using the posterolateral approach and a separate medial approach for the medial malleolus fracture. Postoperatively, posterior short-leg splints were applied for the first two weeks. Thereafter, the splint was removed, and controlled ankle motion boots were applied to encourage an early range of motion for four more weeks. Weight-bearing was not allowed during this period. At six weeks, when the fracture appeared stable and any associated fractures were healed, the boots were removed and progressive rehabilitation (progressive weight bearing and ankle range of motion exercise) was allowed. The patients had outpatient visits for the first two weeks, four weeks, three months, six months, and then every six months postoperatively.

5. Clinical outcome

The clinical outcome was evaluated based on the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). The FAOS is a subjective foot and ankle clinical outcome score for patient-relevant outcomes after a foot and ankle injury.[22] The FAOS consists of 42 items grouped into five subscales: pain (9 items), other symptoms (7 items), activities of daily living (ADL; 17 items), sport and recreational function (sport/recreation, 5 items), and foot and ankle related quality of life (QOL; 4 items). Each question of the item was scored on a five-point Likert scale between 0–4 (non, mild, moderate, severe, and extreme problems). Scores were calculated by summing the total items score of the sub-scale and dividing it by the maximum subscale score. The final score was transformed into a scale of 0–100 (0=extreme problem, 100=no problem). The FAOS was evaluated at one year postoperatively.

6. Statistics

Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities of HU measurements were assessed using ICC of the radiographic measurements, and an agreement of 0.75 was considered excellent.[21] Values are presented as mean and standard deviation for continuous data and number or percentage for categorical data. The relationship between HU and BMD measurement using DXA were evaluated using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Correlations between HU and the FAOS were determined using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, followed by a linear regression model, which was adjusted for age and BMI, as both are potential confounder. To compare the osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis groups, a nonparametric Mann–Whitney test and Fisher’s exact test were used for continuous and categorical data, respectively. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Among the 51 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 27 and 24 were included in the non-osteoporosis and osteoporosis groups, respectively, according to the T score. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, such as age at operation, BMI, smoking, pattern of fracture, and fracture classifications in both groups (Table 1).

Mean HU value of all the patients was 155.6±41.0. Inter-observer reliability was excellent with a value of 0.856, and the intra-observer reliability was also excellent with a value of 0.879. Although the HU value of the osteoporosis group was lower than that of the non-osteoporosis group, there was no significant difference (Table 2). The mean HU values were significantly correlated with lumbar and total lumbar spine BMD measurement using DXA (Table 3).

Clinical outcome evaluated based on the FAOS was not significantly different between both groups (Table 4). Increased HU was significantly correlated with improved clinical outcome in three of five FAOS subscales: symptoms (Pearson r=0.576, P=0.003), pain (Pearson r=0.733, P<0.001), ADL (Pearson r=0.608, P=0.002), and QOL (Pearson r=0.692, P<0.001) (Table 5). In a linear regression analysis adjusted for age and BMI, increased HU was significantly correlated with improved clinical out-comes in three of five of the FAOS subscales: symptoms (Pearson r=0.602, P=0.008), pain (Pearson r=0.777, P<0.001), ADL (Pearson r=0.629, P=0.007), and QOL (Pearson r=0.704, P=0.001) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

The bone density and quality may influence the treatment and clinical outcome after hip, spine, or distal radius fracture. However, there are few studies on the effect of bone density after ankle fracture. Therefore, this study is meaningful in that it is the study to confirm the correlation of HU values of preoperative CT and BMD measurement using DXA in ankle fractures. The validation of HU values of preoperative CT was confirmed with the high inter- and intra-observer reliabilities. Moreover, the correlation of HU values and clinical outcome may have significant implications in the treatment of ankle fractures.

As the incidence of osteoporosis increases in elderly patients, the effect of bone quality on incidence and prevention of fracture becomes more important.[23,24] Moreover, the influence of bone quality on treatment and results is increasingly important.[2] DXA is the gold standard for BMD in the proximal femur and lumbar spine, not in distal regions, such as the foot and ankle.[14] Recently, decreased BMD and bone quality change were reported in elderly patients with ankle fractures.[11,12] However, there is no gold standard for the measurement of ankle BMD. Quantitative CT (QCT) can be used as an alternative method to measure the BMD of specific regions.[25] However, there are limitation to clinical use because QCT requires specific software, calibrating phantoms, and personnel training.[18] Accurate analysis of bone density and appropriate treatment may be necessary in ankle fractures.

Several studies have reported a strong positive correlation between HU and BMD measurement with DXA, as well as good to excellent reliability.[18,26–28] Schreiber et al. [18] reported significant correlation between HU and T-score in the lumbar spine and suggested that HU could be an alternative method for determining regional bone density. Pompe et al. [26] showed good to excellent inter- and intra-observer reliabilities on vertebral HU on CT. Moreover, the HU values in areas where DXA cannot be applied, such as the foot and ankle, significantly correlated with central BMD measurement using DXA.[27,28] Warner et al. [28] reported that the HU measured from 1 cm above the plafond were significantly correlated with central BMD measurement using DXA. In this study, the correlation of HU values for preoperative CT and BMD measurement using DXA was confirmed in ankle fractures. Moreover, the validation of HU values for preoperative CT was confirmed with the high inter- and intra-observer reliabilities. We compared the HU value between osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis patients. Although the HU value for osteoporosis patients was lower than that of non-osteoporosis patients, there was no significant difference. Therefore, a large sample size study should be performed to establish the diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis using HU base on preoperative CT image.

It is well known that BMD measurement using DXA is associated with implant fixation strength and surgical outcome. Recently, several studies reported that HU values based on CT may influence the clinical and radiologic outcome in orthopedic surgery. Meredith et al. [29] demonstrated that decreased HU value was associated with increased risk for adjacent segmental fractures during spinal fusion. Schreiber et al. [30] reported the correlation between increased HU value and successful spinal fusion. Moreover, decreased preoperative HU value correlated with inferior clinical outcomes in tibial plateau and ankle fractures.[28,31] Lee et al. [27] confirmed that the decreased preoperative HU values were associated with inferior clinical and radiologic outcomes in calcaneal fracture. In this study, the correlation between HU values of preoperative CT and clinical outcome was confirmed in ankle fractures. The HU values of preoperative CT may provide valuable information for predicting postoperative clinical outcomes.

This study has several inherent limitations. First, because this study was a retrospective study, we included consecutive patients treated by a single senior surgeon with the same surgical and rehabilitation methods. Second, the relatively small sample size limited the study’s validity for clinical practice. Third, all of the patients were female. Thus, further multicenter prospective studies may be required. Moreover, the clinical outcomes were evaluated in the short-term follow-up periods. To validate the association between clinical outcome and HU value, long term follow-up periods may be necessary. Finally, confounding variables, such as age and BMI, were controlled using a linear regression analysis. Unaccounted confounding variables may remain.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of patient inclusion. BMD, bone mineral density.

Fig. 2 (A) Method for determining the Hounsfield units at the distal tibia metaphyseal region approximately 1 cm proximal to the plafond on computed tomography axial images. (B) The Hounsfield unit was calculated elliptical region of the distal tibia. AVR, average; Min, minimum; MAX, maximum; SUM, summation; SD, standard deviation.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics

Variables	Total patients	Non-osteoporotic group	Osteoporotic group	P-value	
No. of patients	51	27	24		
	
Age (yr)	70.2±7.4	68.8±6.2	71.8±8.6	0.061	
	
Gender	
 Female	51 (100.0)	27 (100.0)	24 (100.0)		
	
BMI (kg/m2)	25.5±4.3	25.9±4.2	24.3±5.0	0.139	
	
Smoke	3 (5.8)	2 (7.4)	1 (4.2)	0.485	
	
Pattern of fracture				0.145	
 Bimalleolus	27 (52.9)	14 (51.9)	13 (54.2)		
 Trimalleolus	24 (47.1)	13 (48.1)	11 (45.8)		
	
Denis-Weber				0.733	
 A type	13 (25.5)	7 (25.9)	6 (25.0)		
 B type	34 (66.7)	18 (66.7)	16 (66.7)		
 C type	4 (7.8)	2 (7.4)	2 (8.3)		
	
Lauge-Hansen				0.563	
 SER	29 (56.9)	15 (55.6)	14 (58.3)		
 PER	19 (37.3)	10 (37.0)	9 (37.5)		
 SA	3 (5.9)	2 (7.4)	1 (4.2)		
The data is presented as mean±standard deviation or N (%).

BMI, body mass index; SER, supination external rotation; PER, pronation external rotation; SA, supination abduction.

Table 2 Hounsfield unit value and bone mineral density measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

Variables	Total patients	Non-osteoporotic group	Osteoporotic group	P-value	
HU	155.6±41.0	164.8±41.1	144.5±39.4	0.200	
	
BMD (g/cm2)	
 Lumbar	−2.2±0.7	−1.7±0.6	−2.7±0.5	0.001	
 Femur	−1.9±0.9	−1.4±0.7	−2.4±0.9	0.002	
 Total	−1.4±0.9	−1.0±0.9	−1.9±0.8	0.003	
The data is presented as mean±standard deviation.

HU, Hounsfield unit; BMD, bone mineral density.

Table 3 Correlation between Hounsfield unit value and bone mineral density measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

	Lumbar BMD	Femur BMD	Total BMD	
			
Pearson r	P-value	Pearson r	P-value	Pearson r	P-value	
HU	0.419	0.041	0.393	0.057	0.593	0.002	
HU, Hounsfield unit; BMD, bone mineral density.

Table 4 Clinical outcome

FAOS	Non-osteoporotic group	Osteoporotic group	P-value	
Symptom	89.7±10.7	84.7±12.5	0.230	
Pain	89.3±10.2	86.7±9.7	0.597	
ADL	90.1±7.1	82.1±22.7	0.186	
Sports	76.2±14.4	73.2±11.2	0.493	
QOL	87.4±17.0	83.1±21.5	0.953	
The data is presented as mean±standard deviation.

FAOS, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score; ADL, activity of daily living; QOL, quality of life.

Table 5 Correlation between Hounsfield unit and clinical outcome

FAOS	Correlation analysis	Linear regression	
		
Pearson r	P-value	Beta	P-value	
Symptoms	0.576	0.003	0.602	0.008	
	
Pain	0.733	<0.001	0.777	<0.001	
	
ADL	0.608	0.002	0.629	0.007	
	
Sports	0.328	0.118	0.322	0.301	
	
QOL	0.692	<0.001	0.704	0.001	
FAOS, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score; ADL, activity of daily living; QOL, quality of life.

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant from Jeju National University Hospital in 2023.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board of our hospital (IRB). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations (Declaration of Helsinki).

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Yi H Ha YC Lee YK National healthcare budget impact analysis of the treatment for osteoporosis and fractures in Korea J Bone Metab 2013 20 17 23 10.11005/jbm.2013.20.1.17 24524051
2 Cummings SR Kelsey JL Nevitt MC Epidemiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures Epidemiol Rev 1985 7 178 208 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036281 3902494
3 Hodkinson HM Letter: osteomalacia and femoral fractures Lancet 1974 1 416 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)93188-2
4 Jahng JS Lee WI Measurement of bone mineral density in osteoporotic fractures of the spine using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry Orthopedics 1996 19 951 4 10.3928/0147-7447-19961101-08 8936530
5 Hasselman CT Vogt MT Stone KL Foot and ankle fractures in elderly white women. Incidence and risk factors J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003 85 820 4 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00008 12728031
6 Lee KM Chung CY Kwon SS Ankle fractures have features of an osteoporotic fracture Osteoporos Int 2013 24 2819 25 10.1007/s00198-013-2394-6 23681087
7 Holmberg AH Johnell O Nilsson PM Risk factors for fragility fracture in middle age. A prospective population-based study of 33,000 men and women Osteoporos Int 2006 17 1065 77 10.1007/s00198-006-0137-7 16758143
8 Stein EM Liu XS Nickolas TL Abnormal microarchitecture and stiffness in postmenopausal women with ankle fractures J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96 2041 8 10.1210/jc.2011-0309 21508142
9 Litchfield JC The treatment of unstable fractures of the ankle in the elderly Injury 1987 18 128 32 10.1016/0020-1383(87)90189-6 3508162
10 Beauchamp CG Clay NR Thexton PW Displaced ankle fractures in patients over 50 years of age J Bone Joint Surg Br 1983 65 329 32 10.1302/0301-620x.65b3.6404905 6404905
11 Biver E Durosier C Chevalley T Prior ankle fractures in postmenopausal women are associated with low areal bone mineral density and bone microstructure alterations Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2147 55 10.1007/s00198-015-3119-9 25851699
12 Honkanen R Kröger H Tuppurainen M Fractures and low axial bone density in perimenopausal women J Clin Epidemiol 1995 48 881 8 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00220-k 7782796
13 Link TM Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging Radiology 2012 263 3 17 10.1148/radiol.2633201203 22438439
14 Eckstein F Lochmüller EM Lill CA Bone strength at clinically relevant sites displays substantial heterogeneity and is best predicted from site-specific bone densitometry J Bone Miner Res 2002 17 162 71 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.1.162 11771664
15 Greenfield DM Eastell R Risk factors for ankle fracture Osteoporos Int 2001 12 97 103 10.1007/s001980170140 11303721
16 So E Rushing CJ Simon JE Association between bone mineral density and elderly ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Foot Ankle Surg 2020 59 1049 57 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.03.012 32386919
17 Patterson J Rungprai C Den Hartog T Cortical bone thickness of the distal part of the tibia predicts bone mineral density J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016 98 751 60 10.2106/jbjs.15.00795 27147688
18 Schreiber JJ Anderson PA Rosas HG Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011 93 1057 63 10.2106/jbjs.J.00160 21655899
19 Schreiber JJ Anderson PA Hsu WK Use of computed tomography for assessing bone mineral density Neurosurg Focus 2014 37 E4 10.3171/2014.5.Focus1483
20 Schreiber JJ Gausden EB Anderson PA Opportunistic osteoporosis screening - Gleaning additional information from diagnostic Wrist CT scans J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015 97 1095 100 10.2106/jbjs.N.01230 26135076
21 Shrout PE Fleiss JL Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability Psychol Bull 1979 86 420 8 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420 18839484
22 Roos EM Brandsson S Karlsson J Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction Foot Ankle Int 2001 22 788 94 10.1177/107110070102201004 11642530
23 Unnanuntana A Gladnick BP Donnelly E The assessment of fracture risk J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010 92 743 53 10.2106/jbjs.I.00919 20194335
24 Rosen CJ Clinical practice. Postmenopausal osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2005 353 595 603 10.1056/NEJMcp043801 16093468
25 Engelke K Adams JE Armbrecht G Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography and peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions J Clin Densitom 2008 11 123 62 10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.010 18442757
26 Pompe E de Jong PA de Jong WU Inter-observer and inter-examination variability of manual vertebral bone attenuation measurements on computed tomography Eur Radiol 2016 26 3046 53 10.1007/s00330-015-4145-x 26801161
27 Lee SM Seo JS Kwak SH Bone density of the calcaneus correlates with radiologic and clinical outcomes after calcaneal fracture fixation Injury 2020 51 1910 8 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.063 32409183
28 Warner SJ Garner MR Fabricant PD Bone density correlates with clinical outcomes after ankle fracture fixation Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018 138 1653 7 10.1007/s00402-018-3017-7 30094560
29 Meredith DS Schreiber JJ Taher F Lower preoperative Hounsfield unit measurements are associated with adjacent segment fracture after spinal fusion Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38 415 8 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826ff084 22926280
30 Schreiber JJ Hughes AP Taher F An association can be found between hounsfield units and success of lumbar spine fusion HSS J 2014 10 25 9 10.1007/s11420-013-9367-3 24482618
31 Gausden E Garner MR Fabricant PD Do clinical outcomes correlate with bone density after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017 137 755 60 10.1007/s00402-017-2679-x 28391428
