Literature DB >> 10928227

In situ femoral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry related to ash weight, bone size and density, and its relationship with mechanical failure loads of the proximal femur.

E M Lochmüller1, P Miller, D Bürklein, U Wehr, W Rambeck, F Eckstein.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to directly compare in situ femoral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and in vitro chemical analysis (ash weight and calcium) with mechanical failure loads of the proximal femur, and to determine the influence of bone size (volume) and density on mechanical failure and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD, in g/cm2). We performed femoral DXA in 52 fixed cadavers (age 82.1 +/- 9.7 years; 30 male, 22 female) with intact skin and soft tissues. The femora were then excised, mechanically loaded to failure in a stance phase configuration, their volume measured with a water displacement method (proximal neck to lesser trochanter), and the ash weight and calcium content of this region determined by chemical analysis. The correlation coefficient between the bone mineral content (measured in situ with DXA) and the ash weight was r = 0.87 (standard error of the estimate = 16%), the ash weight allowing for a better prediction of femoral failure loads (r = 0.78; p < 0.01) than DXA (r = 0.67; p < 0.01). The femoral volume (r = 0.61; p < 0.01), but not the volumetric bone density (r = 0.26), was significantly associated with the failure load. The femoral bone volume had a significant impact (r = 0.35; p < 0.01) on the areal BMD (DXA), and only 63% of the variability of bone volume could be predicted (based on the basis of body height, weight and femoral projectional bone area. The results suggest that accuracy errors of femoral DXA limit the prediction of mechanical failure loads, and that the influence of bone size on areal BMD cannot be fully corrected by accounting for body height, weight and projected femoral area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10928227     DOI: 10.1007/s001980070126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  19 in total

1.  Prevalence of osteoporosis using bone mineral measurements at the calcaneus by dual X-ray and laser (DXL).

Authors:  R Kullenberg; J A Falch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  A poisson process model for hip fracture risk.

Authors:  Zvi Schechner; Gangming Luo; Jonathan J Kaufman; Robert S Siffert
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 3.  Computed tomography-based finite element analysis to assess fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Imai
Journal:  World J Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-20

4.  Changes in femur neck bone density in US adults between 1988-1994 and 2005-2008: demographic patterns and possible determinants.

Authors:  A C Looker; L J Melton; L G Borrud; J A Shepherd
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  How does bone quality differ between healthy-weight and overweight adolescents and young adults?

Authors:  Christa L Hoy; Heather M Macdonald; Heather A McKay
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Fam3c modulates osteogenic cell differentiation and affects bone volume and cortical bone mineral density.

Authors:  Jorma A Määttä; Ameya Bendre; Mervi Laanti; Kalman G Büki; Pia Rantakari; Päivi Tervola; Johanna Saarimäki; Matti Poutanen; Pirkko Härkönen; Kalervo Väänänen
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2016-04-06

7.  Assessment of the bilateral asymmetry of human femurs based on physical, densitometric, and structural rigidity characteristics.

Authors:  Melissa A Pierre; David Zurakowski; Ara Nazarian; Diana A Hauser-Kara; Brian D Snyder
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Hip fracture risk assessment using composite indices of femoral neck strength: the Rancho Bernardo study.

Authors:  Arun S Karlamangla; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jean Young; Gail A Greendale
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-11-07       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  New imaging technologies in the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Galateia J Kazakia; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 9.306

10.  Application of a Neural Network Classifier to Radiofrequency-Based Osteopenia/Osteoporosis Screening.

Authors:  Johnathan W Adams; Ziming Zhang; Gregory M Noetscher; Ara Nazarian; Sergey N Makarov
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.