Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 12/2009

01-12-2009 | Consensus Statement

Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing—an international consensus statement (part I)

Authors: S. N. Robinovitch, S. L. Evans, J. Minns, A. C. Laing, P. Kannus, P. A. Cripton, S. Derler, S. J. Birge, D. Plant, I. D. Cameron, D. P. Kiel, J. Howland, K. Khan, J. B. Lauritzen

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 12/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Hip protectors represent a promising strategy for preventing fall-related hip fractures. However, clinical trials have yielded conflicting results due, in part, to lack of agreement on techniques for measuring and optimizing the biomechanical performance of hip protectors as a prerequisite to clinical trials.

Methods

In November 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met in Copenhagen to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents an evidence-based consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for evaluating the biomechanical performance of hip protectors.

Results and conclusions

The primary outcome of testing should be the percent reduction (compared with the unpadded condition) in peak value of the axial compressive force applied to the femoral neck during a simulated fall on the greater trochanter. To provide reasonable results, the test system should accurately simulate the pelvic anatomy, and the impact velocity (3.4 m/s), pelvic stiffness (acceptable range: 39-55 kN/m), and effective mass of the body (acceptable range: 22-33 kg) during impact. Given the current lack of clear evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of specific hip protectors, the primary value of biomechanical testing at present is to compare the protective value of different products, as opposed to rejecting or accepting specific devices for market use.
Literature
1.
Empana JP, Dargent-Molina P, Breart G (2004) Effect of hip fracture on mortality in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:685–690CrossRefPubMed
2.
Wolinsky FD, Fitzgerald JF, Stump TE (1997) The effect of hip fracture on mortality, hospitalization, and functional status: a prospective study. Am J Public Health 87:398–403CrossRefPubMed
3.
Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7:407–413CrossRefPubMed
4.
Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD (2006) Effectiveness of hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in elderly people: systematic review. Bmj 332:571–574CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sawka AM, Boulos P, Beattie K, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, Gafni A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Hanley DA, Adachi JD (2005) Do hip protectors decrease the risk of hip fracture in institutional and community-dwelling elderly? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 16:1461–1474CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kiel DP, Magaziner J, Zimmerman S, Ball L, Barton BA, Brown KM, Stone JP, Dewkett D, Birge SJ (2007) Efficacy of a hip protector to prevent hip fracture in nursing home residents: the HIP PRO randomized controlled trial. JAMA 298:413–422CrossRefPubMed
7.
Derler S, Spierings AB, Schmitt KU (2005) Anatomical hip model for the mechanical testing of hip protectors. Med Eng Phys 27:475–485CrossRefPubMed
8.
Mills NJ (1996) The biomechanics of hip protectors. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 210:259–266
9.
Minns J, Dodd C, Gardner R, Bamford J, Nabhani F (2004) Assessing the safety and effectiveness of hip protectors. Nurs Stand 18:33–38PubMed
10.
Parkkari J, Kannus P, Poutala J, Vuori I (1994) Force attenuation properties of various trochanteric padding materials under typical falling conditions of the elderly. J Bone Miner Res 9:1391–1396CrossRefPubMed
11.
Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1995) Energy-shunting hip padding system attenuates femoral impact force in a simulated fall. J Biomech Eng 117:409–413CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lauritzen JB, Askegaard V (1992) Protection against hip fractures by energy absorption. Dan Med Bull 39:91–93PubMed
13.
Laing AC, Robinovitch SN (2008) The force attenuation provided by hip protectors depends on impact velocity, pelvic size, and soft tissue stiffness ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 130:061005 (9 pages).
14.
van Schoor NM, van der Veen AJ, Schaap LA, Smit TH, Lips P (2006) Biomechanical comparison of hard and soft hip protectors, and the influence of soft tissue. Bone 39:401–407CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kannus P, Parkkari J, Poutala J (1999) Comparison of force attenuation properties of four different hip protectors under simulated falling conditions in the elderly: an in vitro biomechanical study. Bone 25:229–235CrossRefPubMed
16.
Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lauritzen JB, Petersen MM, Lund B (1993) Effect of external hip protectors on hip fractures. Lancet 341:11–13CrossRefPubMed
18.
Parkkari J, Kannus P, Heikkila J, Poutala J, Sievanen H, Vuori I (1995) Energy-shunting external hip protector attenuates the peak femoral impact force below the theoretical fracture threshold: an in vitro biomechanical study under falling conditions of the elderly. J Bone Miner Res 10:1437–1442CrossRefPubMed
19.
O'Halloran PD, Murray LJ, Cran GW, Dunlop L, Kernohan G, Beringer TR (2005) The effect of type of hip protector and resident characteristics on adherence to use of hip protectors in nursing and residential homes—an exploratory study. Int J Nurs Stud 42:387–397CrossRefPubMed
20.
Suzuki T, Yoshida H, Ishizaki T, Yukawa H, Watanabe S, Kumagai S, Shinkai S, Shibata H, Nakamura T, Yasumura S, Haga H (1999) Compliance in use of external protectors for hip fractures among the community elderly in Japan. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi 36:40–44PubMed
21.
Bentzen H, Forsen L, Becker C, Bergland A (2008) Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial. Osteoporos Int 19:101–111CrossRefPubMed
22.
Wu G, Xue S (2008) Portable preimpact fall detector with inertial sensors. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16:178–183CrossRefPubMed
23.
Charpentier PJ (1996) A hip protector based on airbag technology. Bone 18:S117CrossRef
24.
Bouxsein ML, Coan BS, Lee SC (1999) Prediction of the strength of the elderly proximal femur by bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound measurements of the heel and tibia. Bone 25:49–54CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bouxsein ML, Courtney AC, Hayes WC (1995) Ultrasound and densitometry of the calcaneus correlate with the failure loads of cadaveric femurs. Calcif Tissue Int 56:99–103CrossRefPubMed
26.
Bouxsein ML, Szulc P, Munoz F, Thrall E, Sornay-Rendu E, Delmas PD (2007) Contribution of trochanteric soft tissues to fall force estimates, the factor of risk, and prediction of hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 22:825–831CrossRefPubMed
27.
Cheng XG, Lowet G, Boonen S, Nicholson PH, Brys P, Nijs J, Dequeker J (1997) Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry. Bone 20:213–218CrossRefPubMed
28.
Cheng XG, Lowet G, Boonen S, Nicholson PH, Van der Perre G, Dequeker J (1998) Prediction of vertebral and femoral strength in vitro by bone mineral density measured at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 13:1439–1443CrossRefPubMed
29.
Courtney AC, Wachtel EF, Myers ER, Hayes WC (1994) Effects of loading rate on strength of the proximal femur. Calcif Tissue Int 55:53–58CrossRefPubMed
30.
Courtney AC, Wachtel EF, Myers ER, Hayes WC (1995) Age-related reductions in the strength of the femur tested in a fall-loading configuration. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:387–395PubMed
31.
Eckstein F, Wunderer C, Boehm H, Kuhn V, Priemel M, Link TM, Lochmuller EM (2004) Reproducibility and side differences of mechanical tests for determining the structural strength of the proximal femur. J Bone Miner Res 19:379–385CrossRefPubMed
32.
Heini PF, Franz T, Fankhauser C, Gasser B, Ganz R (2004) Femoroplasty-augmentation of mechanical properties in the osteoporotic proximal femur: a biomechanical investigation of PMMA reinforcement in cadaver bones. Clin Biomech 19:506–512CrossRef
33.
Keyak JH (2000) Relationships between femoral fracture loads for two load configurations. J Biomech 33:499–502CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lochmuller EM, Groll O, Kuhn V, Eckstein F (2002) Mechanical strength of the proximal femur as predicted from geometric and densitometric bone properties at the lower limb versus the distal radius. Bone 30:207–216CrossRefPubMed
35.
Lotz JC, Hayes WC (1990) The use of quantitative computed tomography to estimate risk of fracture of the hip from falls. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:689–700PubMed
36.
Manske SL, Liu-Ambrose T, de Bakker PM, Liu D, Kontulainen S, Guy P, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2006) Femoral neck cortical geometry measured with magnetic resonance imaging is associated with proximal femur strength. Osteoporos Int 17:1539–1545CrossRefPubMed
37.
Pinilla TP, Boardman KC, Bouxsein ML, Myers ER, Hayes WC (1996) Impact direction from a fall influences the failure load of the proximal femur as much as age-related bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int 58:231–235PubMed
38.
Pulkkinen P, Eckstein F, Lochmuller EM, Kuhn V, Jamsa T (2006) Association of geometric factors and failure load level with the distribution of cervical vs. trochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res 21:895–901CrossRefPubMed
39.
Pulkkinen P, Jamsa T, Lochmuller EM, Kuhn V, Nieminen MT, Eckstein F (2008) Experimental hip fracture load can be predicted from plain radiography by combined analysis of trabecular bone structure and bone geometry. Osteoporos Int 19:547–558CrossRefPubMed
40.
Laing AC, Tootoonchi I, Hulme PA, Robinovitch SN (2006) Effect of compliant flooring on impact force during falls on the hip. J Orthop Res 24:1405–1411CrossRefPubMed
41.
Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1991) Prediction of femoral impact forces in falls on the hip. J Biomech Eng 113:366–374CrossRefPubMed
42.
Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1997) Distribution of contact force during impact to the hip. Ann Biomed Eng 25:499–508CrossRefPubMed
43.
Parkkari J, Kannus P, Heikkila J, Poutala J, Heinonen A, Sievanen H, Vuori I (1997) Impact experiments of an external hip protector in young volunteers. Calcif Tissue Int 60:354–357CrossRefPubMed
44.
Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1997) Predicting the impact response of a nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom shock-absorbing system from the measured step response. J Biomech Eng 119:221–227CrossRefPubMed
45.
Feldman F, Robinovitch SN (2007) Reducing hip fracture risk during sideways falls: evidence in young adults of the protective effects of impact to the hands and stepping. J Biomech 40:2612–2618CrossRefPubMed
46.
Robinovitch SN, Brumer R, Maurer J (2004) Effect of the "squat protective response" on impact velocity during backward falls. J Biomech 37:1329–1337CrossRefPubMed
47.
Minns RJ, Marsh AM, Chuck A, Todd J (2007) Are hip protectors correctly positioned in use? Age Ageing 36:140–144CrossRefPubMed
48.
Robinovitch SN, McMahon TA, Hayes WC (1995) Force attenuation in trochanteric soft tissues during impact from a fall. J Orthop Res 13:956–962CrossRefPubMed
49.
Nielson CM, Bouxsein ML, Freitas SS, Ensrud KE, Orwoll ES (2009) Trochanteric soft tissue thickness and hip fracture in older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:491–496CrossRefPubMed
50.
European Standard Ref. No. EN 1621-1:1997 E (1997) Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact part 1: requirements and test methods for impact protectors
51.
Spierings AB, Derler S (2006) Assessment of hip protectors and corresponding hip fracture risk using stress calculation in the femoral neck. Med Eng Phys 28:550–559CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing—an international consensus statement (part I)
Authors
S. N. Robinovitch
S. L. Evans
J. Minns
A. C. Laing
P. Kannus
P. A. Cripton
S. Derler
S. J. Birge
D. Plant
I. D. Cameron
D. P. Kiel
J. Howland
K. Khan
J. B. Lauritzen
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 12/2009
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1045-4

Other articles of this Issue 12/2009

Osteoporosis International 12/2009 Go to the issue

Original Article

Incidence of hip fracture in the Republic of Ireland and future projections: a population-based study

Original Article

Automated simulation of areal bone mineral density assessment in the distal radius from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography

Original Article

Fracture risk in patients receiving acid-suppressant medication alone and in combination with bisphosphonates

Original Article

Morphological changes of injected calcium phosphate cement in osteoporotic compressed vertebral bodies

Review

Interventions to improve adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications: a systematic literature review

Original Article

Effects of low-magnitude, high-frequency mechanical stimulation in the rat osteopenia model