Distinctive Geometrical Traits of Proximal Femur Fractures—Original Article and Review of Literature
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
2.2. Measurement Parameters
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, Y.Z. A guide to hip fracture in adults. Chin. J. Surg. 2015, 53, 57–62. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Metcalfe, D. The pathophysiology of osteoporotic hip fracture. McGill J. Med. 2008, 11, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, S.R.; Melton, L.J. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 2002, 359, 1761–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brauer, C.A.; Coca-Perraillon, M.; Cutler, D.M.; Rosen, A.B. Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA 2009, 302, 1573–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faulkner, K.G.; Cummings, S.R.; Black, D.; Palermo, L.; Glüer, C.; Genant, H.K. Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: The study of osteoporotic fractures. J. Bone Miner. Res. 1993, 8, 1211–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tosteson, A.N.; Burge, R.T.; Marshall, D.A.; Lindsay, R. Therapies for treatment of osteoporosis in US women: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact considerations. Am. J. Manag. Care 2008, 14, 605–615. [Google Scholar]
- Burge, R.; Dawson-Hughes, B.; Solomon, D.H.; Wong, J.B.; King, A.; Tosteson, A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2007, 22, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolan, P.; Tiedt, L.; Ellanti, P.; McCarthy, T.; Hogan, N. Incidence of Non-Simultaneous Contralateral Second Hip Fractures: A Single-Center Irish Study. Cureus 2020, 12, e11154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schnell, S.; Friedman, S.M.; Mendelson, D.A.; Bingham, K.W.; Kates, S.L. The 1-year mortality of patients treated in a hip fracture program for elders. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2010, 1, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobolev, B.; Sheehan, K.J.; Kuramoto, L.; Guy, P. Excess mortality associated with second hip fracture. Osteoporos. Int. 2015, 26, 1903–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemi, S.M.; Qoreishy, M.; Keipourfard, A.; Sajjadi, M.M.; Shokraneh, S. Effects of Hip Geometry on Fracture Patterns of Proximal Femur. Arch. Bone Jt. Surg. 2016, 4, 248–252. [Google Scholar]
- Einhorn, T.A. Bone strength: The bottom line. Calcif. Tissue Int. 1992, 51, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.M.; Song, D.L.; Ma, Z.; Tao, Y.-L.; Chen, W.-L.; Zhang, L.-Z.; Wang, X. Mismatch of the short straight cephalomedullary nail (PFNA-II) with the anterior bow of the femur in an Asian population. J. Orthop. Trauma 2014, 28, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, W.; Yu, B.; Hao, T.; Hao, Z.T. Geometric match assessment of three intramedullary nailing systems for Chinese proximal femurs. Chin. J. Orthop. Trauma 2011, 13, 1029–1033. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Dretakis, E.; Kritsikis, N.; Economou, K.; Christodoulou, N. Bilateral non-contemporary fractures of the proximal femur. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1981, 52, 227–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boston, D.A. Bilateral fractures of the femoral neck. Injury 1982, 14, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrøder, H.M.; Petersen, K.K.; Erlandsen, M. Occurrence and incidence of the second hip fracture. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993, 289, 166–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mautalen, C.A.; Vega, E.M.; Einhorn, T.A. Are the etiologies of cervical and trochanteric hip fractures different? Bone 1996, 18, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, W.C.; Myers, E.R.; Morris, J.N.; Gerhart, T.N.; Yett, H.S.; Lipsitz, L.A. Impact near the hip dominates fracture risk in elderly nursing home residents who fall. Calcif. Tissue Int. 1993, 52, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stewart, A.; Porter, R.W.; Primrose, W.R.; Walker, L.G.; Reid, D.M. Cervical and trochanteric hip fractures: Bone mass and other parameters. Clin. Rheumatol. 1999, 18, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.S.; Liu, X.L.; Zhang, Y.Z. Comparison of Proximal Femoral Geometry and Risk Factors between Femoral Neck Fractures and Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures in an Elderly Chinese Population. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 2018, 131, 2524–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, Y.K.; Yi, S.R.; Lee, Y.H.; Kwon, J.; Jang, S.I.; Park, S.H. Effect of Sarcopenia on Postoperative Mortality in Osteoporotic Hip Fracture Patients. J. Bone Metab. 2018, 25, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cobden, A.; Cobden, S.B.; Camurcu, Y.; Ucpunar, H.; Duman, S.; Sofu, H. Effects of postoperative osteoporosis treatment on subsequent fracture and the 5-year survival rates after hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. Arch. Osteoporos. 2019, 14, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oden, A.; McCloskey, E.V.; Kannis, J.A.; Harvey, N.C.; Johansson, H. Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: Secular increases 2010–2040. Osteoporos. Int. 2015, 26, 2243–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melton, L.J., 3rd; Chrischilles, E.A.; Cooper, C.; Lane, A.W.; Riggs, B.L. Perspective. How many women have osteoporosis? J. Bone Miner. Res. 1992, 7, 1005–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Curtis, E.M.; van der Velde, R.; Moon, R.J.; van den Bergh, J.P.; Geusens, P.; de Vries, F.; van Staa, T.P.; Cooper, C.; Harvey, N.C. Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988–2012: Variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Bone 2016, 87, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnell, O.; Kanis, J.A. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos. Int. 2006, 17, 1726–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, T.J.; Looker, A.C.; Ruff, C.B.; Sievanen, H.; Wahner, H.W. Structural trends in the aging femoral neck and proximal shaft: Analysis of the third national health and nutrition examination survey dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry data. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2000, 15, 2297–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Monaco, M.; Vallero, F.; Di Monaco, R.; Tappero, R.; Cavanna, A. Type of hip fracture in patients with Parkinson disease is associated with femoral bone mineral density. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 2297–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinçel, V.E.; Sengelen, M.; Sepici, V.; Çavuşoğlu, T.; Sepici, B. The association of proximal femur geometry with hip fracture risk. Clin. Anat. 2008, 21, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partanen, J.; Jamsa, T.; Jalovaara, P. Influence of the upper femur and pelvic geometry on the risk and type of hip fractures. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2001, 16, 1540–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gnudi, S.; Sitta, E.; Pignotti, E. Prediction of incident hip fracture by femoral neck bone mineral density and neck-shaft angle: A 5-year longitudinal study in post-menopausal females. Br. J. Radiol. 2012, 85, e467–e473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dretakis, E.K.; Papakitsou, E.; Kontakis, G.M.; Dretakis, K.; Psarakis, S.; Steriopoulos, K.A. Bone mineral density, body mass index, and hip axis length in postmenopausal Cretan women with cervical and trochanteric fractures. Calcif. Tissue Int. 1999, 64, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pulkkinen, P.; Partanen, J.; Jalovaara, P.; Jämsä, T. Combination of bone mineral density and upper femur geometry improves the prediction of hip fracture. Osteoporos. Int. 2004, 15, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tal, S.; Gurevich, A.; Sagiv, S.; Guller, V. Differential impact of some risk factors on trochanteric and cervical hip fractures. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2015, 15, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duboeuf, F.; Hans, D.; Schott, A.M.; Kotzki, P.O.; Favier, F.; Marcelli, C.; Meunier, P.J.; Delmas, P.D. Different morphometric and densitometric parameters predict cervical and trochanteric hip fracture: The EPIDOS Study. J. Bone Miner. Res. 1997, 12, 1895–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnudi, S.; Ripamonti, C.; Lisi, L.; Fini, M.; Giardino, R.; Giavaresi, G. Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos. Int. 2002, 13, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szulc, P.; Duboeuf, F.; Schott, A.M.; Dargent-Molina, P.; Meunier, P.J.; Delmas, P.D. Structural determinants of hip fracture in elderly women: Re-analysis of the data from the EPIDOS study. Osteoporos. Int. 2006, 17, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andruszkow, H.; Frink, M.; Frömke, C.; Matityahu, A.; Zeckey, C.; Mommsen, P.; Suntardjo, S.; Krettek, C.; Hildebrand, F. Tip apex distance, hip screw placement, and neck shaft angle as potential risk factors for cut-out failure of hip screws after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Int. Orthop. 2012, 36, 2347–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panula, J.; Sävelä, M.; Jaatinen, P.T.; Aarnio, P.; Kivelä, S.-L. The impact of proximal femur geometry on fracture type—A comparison between cervical and trochanteric fractures with two parameters. Scand. J. Surg. 2008, 97, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, A.L.C.L.A.; Miranda, S.C.; Vasconcelos, H.F.O. Radiographic anatomy of the proximal femur: Femoral neck fracture vs. transtrochanteric fracture. Rev. Bras. Ortop. 2017, 52, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamauchi, K.; Naofumi, M.; Sumida, H.; Fukuta, S.; Hori, H. Comparison of morphological features in the femur between femoral neck fractures and femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2016, 38, 775–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Çukurlu, M.; Karagoz, B.; Keceli, O. The effect of pre-fracture proximal femur geometry on hip fracture type in elderly patients. Medicine 2023, 102, e33622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rotem, G.; Sharfman, Z.T.; Rath, E.; Gold, A.; Rachevsky, G.; Steinberg, E.; Drexler, M.; Haviv, B.; Amar, E. Does hip morphology correlate with proximal femoral fracture type? Hip Int. 2020, 30, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhaegen, J.C.F.; DeVries, Z.; Rakhra, K.; Speirs, A.B.; Beaule, P.E.M.; Grammatopoulos, G.M. Which Acetabular Measurements Most Accurately Differentiate Between Patients and Controls? A Comparative Study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2023; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeda, Y.; Sugano, N.; Saito, M.; Yonenobu, K. Comparison of femoral morphology and bone mineral density between femoral neck fractures and trochanteric fractures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 884–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnudi, S.; Malavolta, N.; Testi, D.; Viceconti, M. Differences in proximal femur geometry distinguish vertebral from femoral neck fractures in osteoporotic women. Br. J. Radiol. 2004, 77, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gnudi, S.; Ripamonti, C.; Gualtieri, G.; Malavolta, N. Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic woman. Br. J. Radiol. 1999, 72, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownbill, R.A.; Ilich, J.Z. Hip geometry and its role in fracture: What do we know so far? Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2003, 1, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patron, M.S.; Duthie, R.A.; Sutherland, A.G. Proximal femoral geometry and hip fractures. Acta Orthop. Belg. 2006, 72, 51–54. [Google Scholar]
- Im, G.I.; Lim, M.J. Proximal hip geometry and hip fracture risk assessment in a Korean population. Osteoporos. Int. 2011, 22, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferris, B.D.; Kennedy, C.; Bhamra, M.; Muirhead-Allwood, W. Morphology of the femur in proximal femoral fractures. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1989, 71, 475–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johannesdottir, F.; Poole, K.E.; Reeve, J.; Siggeirsdottir, K.; Aspelund, T.; Mogensen, B.; Jonsson, B.Y.; Sigurdsson, S.; Harris, T.B.; Gudnason, V.G.; et al. Distribution of cortical bone in the femoral neck and hip fracture: A prospective case-control analysis of 143 incident hip fractures; the AGES-REYKJAVIK study. Bone 2011, 48, 1268–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poole, K.E.; Mayhew, P.M.; Rose, C.M.; Brown, J.K.; Bearcroft, P.J.; Loveridge, N.; Reeve, J. Changing structure of the femoral neck across the adult female lifespan. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2010, 25, 482–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mayhew, P.M.; Thomas, C.D.; Clement, J.G.; Loveridge, N.; Beck, T.J.; Bonfield, W.; Burgoyne, C.J.; Reeve, J. Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet 2005, 366, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hey, H.W.; Sng, W.J.; Lim, J.L.; Tan, C.S.; Gan, A.T.L.; Ng, J.H.C.; Kagda, F.H.Y. Interpretation of hip fracture patterns using areal bone mineral density in the proximal femur. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2015, 135, 1647–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, A.; Carballido-Gamio, J.; Wang, L.; Lang, T.F.; Su, Y.; Wu, X.; Wang, M.; Wei, J.; Yi, C.; Cheng, X. Spatial differences in the distribution of bone between femoral neck and trochanteric fractures. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2017, 32, 1672–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pi, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, W.; He, Z.; Mao, X. Measurement of proximal femoral morphology and analysis of 500 cases in Hunan Province. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2013, 38, 925–930. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ruff, C.B.; Hayes, W.C. Subperiosteal expansion and cortical remodeling of the human femur and tibia with aging. Science 1982, 217, 945–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruff, C.B.; Hayes, W.C. Sex differences in age-related remodeling of the femur and tibia. J. Orthop. Res. 1988, 6, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, W.J.; Gillespie, L.D.; Parker, M.J. Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, 10, CD001255. [Google Scholar]
- Robinovitch, S.N.; Evans, S.L.; Minns, J. Hip protectors: Recommendations for biomechanical testing—An international consensus statement (part I). Osteoporos. Int. J. Establ. Result Coop. Eur. Found. Osteoporos. Natl. Osteoporos. Found. USA 2009, 20, 1977–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, A.; Fleps, I.; Cripton, P.A.; Guy, P.; Ferguson, S.J.; Helgason, B. The efficacy of femoral augmentation for hip fracture prevention using ceramic-based cements: A preliminary experimentally-driven finite element investigation. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023, 11, 1079644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, W.J.; Wakeling, J.M.; Robinovitch, S.N. Kinematic analysis of video-captured falls experienced by older adults in long-term care. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 911–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fung, A.; Fleps, I.; Cripton, P.A.; Guy, P.; Ferguson, S.J.; Helgason, B. Prophylactic augmentation implants in the proximal femur for hip fracture prevention: An in silico investigation of simulated sideways fall impacts. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2022, 126, 104957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parry, J.A.; Barrett, I.; Schoch, B.; Cross, W.; Yuan, B. Validation of Neck-Shaft Angle Correction after Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation. J. Orthop. Trauma 2018, 32, 505–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fink, B.; Morgan, M.; Schuster, P. Reconstruction of the anatomy of the hip in total hip arthroplasty with two different kinds of stems. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022, 23, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ν | % | ||
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Women | 51 | 72.9% |
Men | 19 | 27.1% | |
Tönnis classification | 0 | 1 | 1.4% |
1 | 6 | 8.6% | |
2 | 42 | 60% | |
3 | 19 | 27% | |
4 | 3.8 | 2.9% | |
Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
Age (ys) | 80.5 | 9 | |
Femoral Head Diameter (FHD) | 5.4 | 0.4 | |
Femoral Neck Diameter (FND) | 3.8 | 0.4 | |
Femoral Shaft Diameter (FSD) | 3.1 | 0.3 | |
Femoral Canal Diameter (FCD) | 1.6 | 0.3 | |
Offset Length (OL) | 3.8 | 0.7 | |
Neck Length (NL) | 5.2 | 0.8 | |
Neck Shaft Angle (NSA) | 132.1 | 5.1 | |
Wiberg Angle (WA) | 44.9 | 8.1 | |
Acetabular angle (AA) | 34.6 | 3.8 | |
Hip Axis Length (HAL) | 11 | 0.9 |
Femoral Fracture Type | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trochanteric (FTF) | Neck (FNF) | |||||
Ν | % | Ν | % | p | ||
Gender | Women | 24 | 80.0% | 27 | 67.5% | 0.244 |
Men | 6 | 20.0% | 13 | 32.5% | ||
Tönnis classification | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 2.5% | 0.271 |
1 | 4 | 13.3% | 2 | 5.0% | ||
2 | 16 | 53.3% | 26 | 65.0% | ||
3 | 8 | 26.7% | 11 | 27.5% | ||
4 | 2 | 6.7% | 0 | 0.0% | ||
PAUWELS | 1 | 3 | 7.5% | |||
2 | 27 | 67.5% | ||||
3 | 10 | 25.0% | ||||
AO | 31A1,1 | 4 | 13.8% | |||
31A1,3 | 2 | 6.9% | ||||
31A2,1 | 1 | 3.4% | ||||
31A2,2 | 10 | 34.5% | ||||
31A2,3 | 9 | 31.0% | ||||
31A3,2 | 2 | 6.9% | ||||
31B2,2 | 1 | 3.4% | ||||
Mean | Standard Deviation | Mean | Standard Deviation | p | ||
Age (ys) | 83.0 | 8.1 | 78.7 | 9.3 | 0.050 | |
Femoral Head Diameter (FHD) | 5.3 | 0.4 | 5.4 | 0.3 | 0.398 | |
Femoral Neck Diameter (FND) | 3.7 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 0.214 | |
Femoral Shaft Diameter (FSD) | 3.1 | 0.3 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.387 | |
Femoral Canal Diameter (FCD) | 1.7 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.094 | |
Offset Length (OL) | 4.0 | 0.7 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 0.125 | |
Neck Length (NL) | 5.3 | 0.8 | 5.1 | 0.8 | 0.190 | |
Neck Shaft Angle (NSA) | 130.9 | 4.3 | 133.0 | 5.6 | 0.097 | |
Wiberg Angle (WA) | 45.8 | 6.7 | 44.2 | 9.0 | 0.405 | |
Acetabular angle (AA) | 34.7 | 3.4 | 34.5 | 4.1 | 0.858 | |
Hip Axis Length (HAL) | 11.1 | 0.9 | 11.0 | 0.9 | 0.620 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vlachos, C.; Ampadiotaki, M.M.; Papagrigorakis, E.; Galanis, A.; Zachariou, D.; Vavourakis, M.; Rodis, G.; Vasiliadis, E.; Kontogeorgakos, V.A.; Pneumaticos, S.; et al. Distinctive Geometrical Traits of Proximal Femur Fractures—Original Article and Review of Literature. Medicina 2023, 59, 2131. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122131
Vlachos C, Ampadiotaki MM, Papagrigorakis E, Galanis A, Zachariou D, Vavourakis M, Rodis G, Vasiliadis E, Kontogeorgakos VA, Pneumaticos S, et al. Distinctive Geometrical Traits of Proximal Femur Fractures—Original Article and Review of Literature. Medicina. 2023; 59(12):2131. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122131
Chicago/Turabian StyleVlachos, Christos, Margarita Michaela Ampadiotaki, Eftychios Papagrigorakis, Athanasios Galanis, Dimitrios Zachariou, Michail Vavourakis, George Rodis, Elias Vasiliadis, Vasileios A. Kontogeorgakos, Spiros Pneumaticos, and et al. 2023. "Distinctive Geometrical Traits of Proximal Femur Fractures—Original Article and Review of Literature" Medicina 59, no. 12: 2131. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122131