Literature DB >> 11393788

Structural adaptation to changing skeletal load in the progression toward hip fragility: the study of osteoporotic fractures.

T J Beck1, T L Oreskovic, K L Stone, C B Ruff, K Ensrud, M C Nevitt, H K Genant, S R Cummings.   

Abstract

Longitudinal, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) hip data from 4187 mostly white, elderly women from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures were studied with a structural analysis program. Cross-sectional geometry and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured in narrow regions across the femoral neck and proximal shaft We hypothesized that altered skeletal load should stimulate adaptive increases or decreases in the section modulus (bending strength index) and that dimensional details would provide insight into hip fragility. Weight change in the approximately 35 years between scan time points was used as the primary indicator of altered skeletal load. "Static" weight was defined as within 5% of baseline weight, whereas "gain" and 'loss" were those who gained or lost >5%, respectively. In addition, we used a frailty index to better identify those subjects undergoing changing in skeletal loading. Subjects were classified as frail if unable to rise from a chair five times without using arm support. Subjects who were both frail and lost weight (reduced loading) were compared with those who were not frail and either maintained weight (unchanged loading) or gained weight (increased loading). Sixty percent of subjects (n = 2,559) with unchanged loads lost BMD at the neck but not at the shaft, while section moduli increased slightly at both regions. Subjects with increasing load (n = 580) lost neck BMD but gained shaft BMD; section moduli increased markedly at both locations. Those with declining skeletal loads (n = 105) showed the greatest loss of BMD at both neck and shaft; loss at the neck was caused by both increased loss of bone mass and greater subperiosteal expansion; loss in shaft BMD decline was only caused by greater loss of bone mass. This group also showed significant declines in section modulus at both sites. These results support the contention that mechanical homeostasis in the hip is evident in section moduli but not in bone mass or density. The adaptive response to declining skeletal loads, with greater rates of subperiosteal expansion and cortical thinning, may increase fragility beyond that expected from the reduction in section modulus or bone mass alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Non-programmatic

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11393788     DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.6.1108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  87 in total

Review 1.  Bone quality: where do we go from here?

Authors:  Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Measuring the structural strength of bones with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: principles, technical limitations, and future possibilities.

Authors:  Thomas Beck
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Type 2 diabetes and bone fractures.

Authors:  Kendall F Moseley
Journal:  Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.243

4.  Age-specific reference values of hip geometric indices from a representative sample of the Japanese female population: Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Study.

Authors:  M Iki; N DongMei; J Tamaki; Y Sato; S Kagamimori; Y Kagawa; H Yoneshima
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Differential Age-related Changes in Bone Geometry between the Humerus and the Femur in Healthy Men.

Authors:  Matti D Allen; S Jared McMillan; Cliff S Klein; Charles L Rice; Greg D Marsh
Journal:  Aging Dis       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 6.745

6.  Hip geometry in diabetic women: implications for fracture risk.

Authors:  Rajesh Garg; Zhao Chen; Thomas Beck; Jane A Cauley; Guanglin Wu; Dorothy Nelson; Beth Lewis; Andrea LaCroix; Meryl S LeBoff
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 8.694

7.  Two new regions of interest to evaluate separately cortical and trabecular BMD in the proximal femur using DXA.

Authors:  Sven Prevrhal; Margarita Meta; Harry K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-11-04       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Assessing bone quality in terms of bone mineral density, buckling ratio and critical fracture load.

Authors:  D Anitha; Taeyong Lee
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2014-11-30

9.  Effects of dietary nutrients and food groups on bone loss from the proximal femur in men and women in the 7th and 8th decades of age.

Authors:  S Kaptoge; A Welch; A McTaggart; A Mulligan; N Dalzell; N E Day; S Bingham; K-T Khaw; J Reeve
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Does obesity really make the femur stronger? BMD, geometry, and fracture incidence in the women's health initiative-observational study.

Authors:  Thomas J Beck; Moira A Petit; Guanglin Wu; Meryl S LeBoff; Jane A Cauley; Zhao Chen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 6.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.