Provider: - Institution: - Data provided by Europeana Collections- Predpostavka: Geometrijom kuka koja prihvaća anatomski i aktivni položaj glave prema vratu i dijafizi bedrene kosti moguće je specifičnije i osjetljivije dijagnosticirati žene s povečanim rizikom za prijelom kuka nego prije korištenim mjerama FAL, Q kut i TMA. Ispitanici i postupci: Na uprosječenom uzorku žena Požeško-slavonske županije prema spolu, dobi, mineralnoj gustoći kosti, indeksu tjelesne mase, sličnom djetinjstvu, materinstvu, socijalnom i ekonomskom položaju, ispitali smo krivulje primajuće operativne karakteristike (ROC) za dva tipa osovina i za dva tipa prijeloma - vrata i trohanternog područja bedrene kosti. Dosadašnje mjere vratne osovine određene vizualnom procjenom (FAL, Q kut, TMA) zamjenili smo pouzdanijom, originalnom konstrukcijom s dvije točke vrata bedrene kosti koju smo nazvali NN´osovinom. NN´osovina omogućuje glavi bedrene kosti neanatomsku centriranost, dok CN osovina omogućuje aktivno sudjelovanje glave u određivanju dužine i kuta. Rezultati: Mjere CN dužina osovine, CNS kut, CNTMA određene prema CN osovini jesu statistički značajno veće u vratnoj prijelomnoj skupini (83,01±6,09 mm, 128,38±6,02°, 50,00±5,86 mm) nego u kontrolnoj skupini (77,93±4,38 mm, 124,36±6,73°, 43,45±8,86 mm), na nivou p< 0,05. Razlika između vratne prijelomne i kontrolne skupine za NN´AL određene prema NN´osovini je statistički značajna (81,81±6,40 mm i 77,84±4,21mm), p= 0,001. Mjere NS kut (124,52±7,045° i 122,69±6,08°, p= 0,196) i NN´TMA (43,55±9,95 mm i 41,82±7,85 mm, p= 0,368), satistički se ne razlikuju, p> 0,05. Mjere geometrije kuka određene CN osovinom i NN´osovinom u trohanternoj prijelomnoj i kontrolnoj grupi nisu međusobno statistički različite. Rezultati za ROC analizu osjetljivosti i specifičnosti za dijagnosticiranje osoba povećanog rizika za prijelom vrata jesu: CNAL 0,762 i 0,578, CNS kut 0,571 i 0,689, CNTMA 0,69 i 0,669, NNÁL 0,548 i 0,689, p< 0,05. NS kut i NN´TMA, nemaju osjetljivosti, niti specifičnosti, p> 0,05. Za prijelome trohanternog područja bedrene kosti ROC analiza osjetljivosti i specifičnosti gore navedenim mjerama ne pokazuje statističke značajnosti, p> 0,05. Zaključak: Mjere određene aktivnim položajem glave prema vratu bedrene kosti (CNAL, CNS kut i CNTMA) dobri su testovi za dijagnosticiranje žena s povećanim rizikom za prijelom vrata bedrene kosti. Mjere određene osovinom s pasivnim položajem glave, NN´TMA i NS kut, nisu dobri za dijagnosticiranje povišenog rizika za ovu vrst prijeloma. NN´AL je granične vrijednosti. Naveden mjere geometrije kuka nisu korisne u dijagnosticiranju osoba s povišenim rizikom za trohanterne prijelome bedrene kosti, bez obzira na poziciju glave prema vratu i dijafizi bedrene kosti.- Purpose. A more specific and sensitive diagnosis of women running risk of hip fractures made possible by a hip geometry which respects an anatomical and active position of the head towards the neck and the diapshisis of the femur than the before used FAL, Q angle and TMA measures. Patients and Methods. On an standardised pattern of women from the Pozega-Slavonia county- Croatia, according to sex, age, Bone Mineral Density, Body Mass Index, simmilar childhood , maternity, social and economical position, we have examined the Reciver Operatating Characteristic (ROC) Curve for the lenght and angle of two axes and two types of fractures – of the neck and the trochanter region of the femoris. The neck axis determined by visual estimation of previous measures (FAL, Q angle, TMA) we have replaced with a more reliable, original construction with two neck points wich we call the ŃN´ axis. The often used NN´ axis enables an nonanatomicaly centered head, while the CN axis enables an active participation of the head in determining lenght and angle. Results. The measures CN axis length, CNS angle, CNTMA determined towards the CN axis are statistically significantly larger in the neck fracture group (83.01±6.09 mm, 128.38±6.02°, 50.00±5.86 mm) than in the control group (77.93±4.38 mm, 124.36±6.73°, 43.45±8.86 mm), p< 0.05.The difference between the neck fracture and control group which is determined towards the NN´ axis for NN´AL, is statistically significantly different (81.81±6.40 mm and 77.84±4.21mm), p= 0.001. The measures NS angle (124.52±7.04° and 122.69±6.08°, p= 0.196) and NN´TMA (43.55±9.95 mm and 41.82±7.85 mm, p= 0.368), p> 0.05. Hip geometry measures determined by the CN axis and the NN´ axis in the trochanter fracture and control groups are not mutually significantly statistically different. The results of the ROC analysis of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnostics of people running risk of neck fractures are CNAL 0.762 and 0.578, CNS angle 0.571 and 0.689, CNTMA 0.69 and 0.669, NNÁL 0.548 and 0.689, p< 0.05. Sensitivity and specificity for NS angle and NN´TMA p> 0.05. For fractures of the trochanter region of the femur the ROC analysis of sensitivity and specificity for above mentioned measures does not show statistical significance, p> 0.05. Conclusion: Measure determined by the active position of the head towards the femoral neck (CNAL,CNS angle and CNTMA) are a good test for the diagnosis of women running risk of femoral neck fractures. Measures determined by a neck axis with a pasive head position, NN´TMA and NS angle, are not good at diagnosing those running risk of these kind of fracture. NN´AL is of a marginal value. The listed hip geometry measures are not usable in the diagnosis of those running risk of femoral trochanter fractures, no matter the position of the head towards the neck and the diaphisis of the femur.- All metadata published by Europeana are available free of restriction under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. However, Europeana requests that you actively acknowledge and give attribution to all metadata sources including Europeana