Femoral neck structural properties are altered in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Aims: To determine differences in hip geometry in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared with healthy adults without diabetes.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 43 adults with T1D (mean age 56 years, 84 % female, 92 % White, mean duration of diabetes of 39 years, A1c of 7.8 %) and 40 adults without diabetes (mean age 60 years, 80 % female, 77 % white) who had hip dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans from previous studies were included. Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and measures of hip structural properties at the narrow neck, intertrochanteric and femoral shaft regions of the left proximal femur were analyzed between adults with T1D and controls using linear models controlled for age, sex, and body mass index.

Results: There were no significant differences in DXA-based aBMD at the hip (0.769 ± 0.132 vs. 0.900 ± 0.139 g/cm, p = 0.07) or femoral neck (0.722 ± 0.116 vs. 0.849 ± 0.114 g/cm, p = 0.09) regions between adults with T1D and controls. When controlling for age, sex, and BMI, DXA-based aBMD at the hip (0.880 ± 0.022 vs. 0.943 ± 0.020 g/cm, p = 0.02) and femoral neck (0.750 ± 0.021 vs. 0.812 ± 0.020 g/cm, p = 0.02) regions were significantly lower in adults with T1D than controls. Cortical thickness was significantly lower in all three hip regions in adults with T1D than in controls (narrow-neck: 0.169 ± 0.005 vs. 0.186 ± 0.005 cm, p = 0.011; intertrochanteric: 0.388 ± 0.013 vs. 0.425 ± 0.012 cm, p = 0.017; femoral shaft: 0.529 ± 0.017 vs. 0.586 ± 0.016 cm, p = 0.006). Moreover, adults with T1D had a smaller cross-sectional area at the narrow-neck (3.06 ± 0.09 vs. 3.32 ± 0.08 cm, p = 0.015), a higher femoral shaft endocortical diameter (2.23 ± 0.07 vs. 2.02 ± 0.06 cm, p = 0.011), and higher buckling ratios (an indicator of cortical instability) at the intertrochanteric (9.22 ± 0.34 vs. 8.23 ± 0.32, p = 0.016) and femoral shaft (3.32 ± 0.15 vs. 2.89 ± 0.14, p = 0.016) regions.

Conclusions: Adults with T1D have several significant differences in proximal femur morphology compared with controls. These morphological differences may adversely affect the mechanical integrity of the proximal femur, thereby contributing to an increased risk of fracture in the event of a fall.