H Sievänen1. 1. Bone Research Group, UKK Institute, Tampere, Finland. llhasi@uta.fi
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD) is an established predictor of osteoporotic fractures and reflects bone strength as well. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a physical model for appropriate interpretation of BMD. METHODS: DXA and peripheral quantitative computed tomography investigations of the distal tibia (n = 45), proximal tibia (n = 12), distal femur (n = 26), and distal radius (n = 34) were carried out. The DXA-derived BMD was analytically modeled as a nonlinear function of volumetric bone mineral apparent density and the cross-sectional area (eCSA) of given bone; ie, BMD(mod) = apparent BMD x square root of eCSA. RESULTS: At every measured skeletal site, the relationship between BMD and BMD(mod) was systematically stronger than that observed separately between BMD and apparent BMD or cross-sectional area. The models (r2) explained 85%, 94%, 87%, and 74% of the variability in BMD at the distal tibia, proximal tibia, distal femur, and distal radius, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mutual contributions of bone density and size to BMD can vary to some extent in a site-dependent fashion. This dual nature of BMD on one hand provides a reasonable mechanical explanation for why BMD is a good surrogate of bone strength and a predictor of osteoporotic fractures but on the other hand, complicates its detailed interpretation.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD) is an established predictor of osteoporotic fractures and reflects bone strength as well. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a physical model for appropriate interpretation of BMD. METHODS: DXA and peripheral quantitative computed tomography investigations of the distal tibia (n = 45), proximal tibia (n = 12), distal femur (n = 26), and distal radius (n = 34) were carried out. The DXA-derived BMD was analytically modeled as a nonlinear function of volumetric bone mineral apparent density and the cross-sectional area (eCSA) of given bone; ie, BMD(mod) = apparent BMD x square root of eCSA. RESULTS: At every measured skeletal site, the relationship between BMD and BMD(mod) was systematically stronger than that observed separately between BMD and apparent BMD or cross-sectional area. The models (r2) explained 85%, 94%, 87%, and 74% of the variability in BMD at the distal tibia, proximal tibia, distal femur, and distal radius, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mutual contributions of bone density and size to BMD can vary to some extent in a site-dependent fashion. This dual nature of BMD on one hand provides a reasonable mechanical explanation for why BMD is a good surrogate of bone strength and a predictor of osteoporotic fractures but on the other hand, complicates its detailed interpretation.
Authors: Riku Nikander; Harri Sievänen; Ari Heinonen; Robin M Daly; Kirsti Uusi-Rasi; Pekka Kannus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Lynn M Marshall; Joseph M Zmuda; Benjamin Ks Chan; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud; Thomas F Lang; Eric S Orwoll Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 6.741