Literature DB >> 15175842

Relationship of body surface area with bone density and its risk of osteoporosis at various skeletal regions in women of mainland China.

Xian-Ping Wu1, Er-Yuan Liao, Shi-Ping Liu, Hong Zhang, Peng-Fei Shan, Xing-Zhi Cao, Yebin Jiang.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between body surface area (BS) and bone mineral density (BMD) and the associated osteoporosis risk at various skeletal regions in women from mainland China. BMD was measured at the posteroanterior (PA) spine (L1-L4), supine lateral spine (L2-L4) including volumetric BMD (vBMD), hip including femoral neck, trochanter and total hip, and forearm, including radius + ulna ultradistal (R + UUD), 1/3 site (R + U1/3) and total region (R + UT) using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) fan-beam bone densitometer (Hologic QDR 4500A) in 3418 females aged from 18 to 75 years. Data analysis revealed a positive correlation between BS and BMD at the various skeletal regions (r = 0.114-0.373, all P = 0.000), but no correlation with vBMD (r = 0.000, P = 0.934). Using the stepwise regression model, BMDs at various skeletal regions were dependent variables while height, weight, body mass index (BMI), BS and projective bone area (BA) were independent variables; BS was determined to be the most important variable that affected the PA spine, hip and forearm BMDs. Subjects were divided into three groups according to size: large BS group (LBSG), intermediate BS group (IBSG) and small BS group (SBSG). The BMD at different skeletal regions of subjects between groups exhibited a significant gradient difference, with LBSG > IBSG > SBSG, but this was not seen for vBMD. On the fitting curves where BMD varied with age at the PA spine, femoral neck, total hip and R + UUD, BMDs of LBSG were 6.93-9.29% higher than those of IBSG and 12.1-16.9 % higher than those of SBSG, whereas those of SBSG were 6.12-9.59% lower than those of IBSG at various skeletal regions, respectively. The prevalence rates and risks of osteoporosis of LBSG were significantly lower than those of SBSG and IBSG, whereas those of IBSG were obviously lower than those of SBSG at various skeletal regions, respectively, presenting a gradient difference among the three study groups, LBSG < IBSG < SBSG. Our study shows that the relationship between BS and BMD exceeds that between BMD and height or weight in women in mainland China. When areal BMD is employed, those with a larger BS have higher areal BMD and lower risks of osteoporosis while, conversely, those with a smaller BS have lower areal BMD, and therefore higher risk for osteoporosis. However, when vBMD is used, these differences diminish or even disappear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15175842     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1608-3

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


  49 in total

1.  Lean mass and physical activity as predictors of bone mineral density in 16-20-year old women.

Authors:  O Valdimarsson; J O Kristinsson; S O Stefansson; S Valdimarsson; G Sigurdsson
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 8.989

2.  Bone mineral acquisition in healthy Asian, Hispanic, black, and Caucasian youth: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  L K Bachrach; T Hastie; M C Wang; B Narasimhan; R Marcus
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.958

3.  [Study of formula for calculating body surface areas of the Chinese adults].

Authors:  Y M Hu; X L Wu; Z H Hu; A H Ren; X Q Wei; X C Wang; Y R Wang
Journal:  Sheng Li Xue Bao       Date:  1999-02

4.  Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis.

Authors:  N F Peel; R Eastell
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Pathogenesis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  D W Dempster; R Lindsay
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-03-27       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis by planar bone densitometry: can body size be disregarded?

Authors:  S Pors Nielsen; N Kolthoff; O Bärenholdt; B Kristensen; B Abrahamsen; A P Hermann; C Brot
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Bone mineral density of the Lebanese reference population.

Authors:  G Maalouf; S Salem; M Sandid; P Attallah; J Eid; N Saliba; I Nehmé; O Johnell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Bone mineral density (BMD) in obesity effect of weight loss.

Authors:  V V Gossain; D S Rao; M J Carella; G Divine; D R Rovner
Journal:  J Med       Date:  1999

9.  A comparison of hip fracture incidence among native Japanese, Japanese Americans, and American Caucasians.

Authors:  P D Ross; H Norimatsu; J W Davis; K Yano; R D Wasnich; S Fujiwara; Y Hosoda; L J Melton
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Bone mineral density of the spine in normal Japanese subjects using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: effect of obesity and menopausal status.

Authors:  K Kin; K Kushida; K Yamazaki; S Okamoto; T Inoue
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 4.333

View more
  3 in total

1.  Bone mass of overweight affluent Indian youth and its sex-specific association with body composition.

Authors:  G Amarendra Reddy; Bharati Kulkarni; Veena Shatrugna; P Thilak Ravindra Reddy; Balakrishna Nagalla; P Ajeya Kumar; K Usha Rani
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 2.  Vertebral dimensions as risk factor of vertebral fracture in osteoporotic patients: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  A Ruyssen-Witrand; L Gossec; S Kolta; M Dougados; C Roux
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-03-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Effect of Body Surface Area on Severe Osteoporotic Fractures: A Study of Osteoporosis in Changsha China.

Authors:  Xi-Yu Wu; Hong-Li Li; Yi Shen; Li-Hua Tan; Ling-Qing Yuan; Ru-Chun Dai; Hong Zhang; Yi-Qun Peng; Zhong-Jian Xie; Zhi-Feng Sheng
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 6.055

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.