Body fat mass influences hip geometry in adult male diabetic patients: A community-based study from North India

Archana K; Sushil Gupta; Manisha Kakaji

doi:10.1530/endoabs.110.EP238

EP238

Prev Next

Section Contents Cite

Endocrine Abstracts (2025) 110 EP238 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.110.EP238

ECEESPE2025 ePoster Presentations Bone and Mineral Metabolism (142 abstracts)

Body fat mass influences hip geometry in adult male diabetic patients: A community-based study from North India

Archana K ¹ , Sushil Gupta ¹ & Manisha Kakaji ¹

Author affiliations

¹Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Endocrinology, Lucknow, India

JOINT276

Introduction: Fat mass positively correlates with hip geometry and may influence fragility fractures. However, the impact in adult diabetic males is unexplored.

Objective: To evaluate the influence of body fat composition on hip geometry and predict fragility fracture.

Methods: 83 urban-dwelling diabetic males, aged ≥60 years underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan (DXA, HologicQDR-4500A/Bedford/MA). Hip structural analysis (HSA) at narrow neck (NN), inter-trochanteric region (IT), and femoral shaft (FS) sites were recorded. At these sites, cross-sectional area (CSA), cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI), section modulus (Z) and buckling ratio (BR) were analyzed. Also, fat composition at different sites from DXA were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and reciprocator operating characteristic curves were calculated.

Results: Amongst the HSA variables, CSMI at NN showed significant positive correlation with total (r=0.52, P = 0.005), left (r=0.47, P = 0.01) and right (r=0.54, P = 0.003) arm, and trunk (0.53,P = 0.004) fat mass. CSMI at IT and FS also showed significant but weaker positive correlations with these fat variables. While CSA, Z and BR exhibited significant correlations with fewer fat sites, but were low. However, none of the fat mass sites predicted fracture on ROC curve analysis.

Table 1. Pearson correlation coefficients between hip geometry variables and fat mass at different sites
	Cross-sectional area			Cross-sectional moment of inertia			Section modulus (Z)			Buckling ratio (BR)
	NN	IT	FS	NN	IT	FS	NN	IT	FS	NN	IT	FS
Total	0.37*	0.29	0.19	0.52*	0.38*	0.35*	0.2	-0.05	0.21	0.06	0.10	0.21
Android	0.19	0.21	0.02	0.39*	0.33*	0.25	-0.01	-0.18	0.11	0.18	0.17	0.27
Gynoid	0.3	0.09	0.07	0.28	0.15	0.11	-0.06	-0.18	0.01	0.00	0.21	0.22
Trunk	0.35*	0.28	0.15	0.53*	0.39*	0.34*	0.20	-0.05	0.21	0.08	0.10	0.21
Arm
Right	0.45*	0.49*	0.39*	0.54*	0.56*	0.49*	0.28	0.07	0.41*	-0.02	0.01	0.08
Left	0.36*	0.32*	0.25	0.47*	0.42*	0.30*	0.17	-0.03	0.19	0.06	0.09	0.16
Leg
Right	0.34*	0.20	0.19	0.40*	0.24	0.31*	0.16	-0.09	0.17	0.03	0.13	0.25
Left	0.27	0.16	0.12	0.37*	0.22	0.23	0.11	-0.08	0.09	0.06	0.12	0.23
NN- Narrow neck, IT- Inter-trochanteric, FS- Femoral shaft; *P<0.05

Conclusions: Fat mass positively influences hip geometry, particularly CSMI, primarily at femoral narrow neck followed by inter-trochanteric and femoral shaft sites in adult diabetic males. However, its limited predictive value for fragility fracture, suggesting additional factors like bone quality and metabolic changes may influence.