Skip to main content
. 2024 Jun 4;115(2):142–149. doi: 10.1007/s00223-024-01237-w

Table 1.

Comparison of demographic, clinical, and radiographic parameters between the periprosthetic fracture cohort and the two control cohorts

Parameters mean (± SD) PPF n = 40 AR n = 40 OA n = 40 p-value (PPF vs. AR) p-value (PPF vs. OA)
Age (yr.) 72.5 (± 11.1) 72.5 (± 9.3) 71.6 (± 10.3)  > 0.99 0.534
Sex ratio (f/m) 26/14 26/14 26/14  > 0.99  > 0.99
BMI (kg/m2) 26.4 (± 4.0) 27.2 (± 4.5) 27.1 (± 3.7) 0.218 0.150
Time in situ (yr.) 6.6 (± 9.5) 9.9 (± 9.9) 0.005
Lowest T-score − 1.78 (± 1.78) − 0.65 (± 1.58) − 0.77 (± 1.34) 0.001 0.005
Lowest Z-score − 0.62 (± 1.69) 0.36 (± 1.52) 0.36 (± 1.29) 0.004 0.004
Normal BMD (%) 13/40 (32.5) 26/40 (65) 23/40 (57.5) 0.007 0.040
Osteopenia (%) 9/40 (22.5) 9/40 (22.5) 13/40 (32.5)  > 0.99 0.450
Osteoporosis (%) 18/40 (45) 5/40 (12.5) 4/40 (10) 0.003  < 0.001
Vitamin D (%) 22/40 (55) 15/40 (37.5) 7/40 (17.5) 0.180  < 0.001
BP/Dmab (%) 9/40 (22.5) 1/40 (2.5) 0.010

Bold indicates significant differences

PPF periprosthetic fracture, AR aseptic revision, OA osteoarthritis, yr. years, f female, m male, BMI body mass index, BMD bone mineral density, BP bisphosphonates, Dmab denosumab