UNLABELLED: A diverse array of bone density, structure, and strength parameters were significantly associated with distal forearm fractures in postmenopausal women, but most of them were also correlated with femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD), which provides an adequate measure of bone fragility at the wrist for routine clinical purposes. INTRODUCTION: This study seeks to test the clinical utility of approaches for assessing forearm fracture risk. METHODS: Among 100 postmenopausal women with a distal forearm fracture (cases) and 105 with no osteoporotic fracture (controls), we measured aBMD and assessed radius volumetric bone mineral density, geometry, and microstructure; ultradistal radius failure load was evaluated in microfinite element (microFE) models. RESULTS: Fracture cases had inferior bone density, geometry, microstructure, and strength. The most significant determinant of fracture in five categories were bone density (femoral neck aBMD; odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD), 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.8), geometry (cortical thickness; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), microstructure (structure model index (SMI); OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), and strength (microFE failure load; OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5); the factor-of-risk (applied load in a forward fall / microFE failure load) was 15% worse in cases (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) ranged from 0.62 to 0.68. The predictors of forearm fracture risk that entered a multivariable model were femoral neck aBMD and SMI (combined AUC, 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Detailed bone structure and strength measurements provide insight into forearm fracture pathogenesis, but femoral neck aBMD performs adequately for routine clinical risk assessment.
UNLABELLED: A diverse array of bone density, structure, and strength parameters were significantly associated with distal forearm fractures in postmenopausal women, but most of them were also correlated with femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD), which provides an adequate measure of bone fragility at the wrist for routine clinical purposes. INTRODUCTION: This study seeks to test the clinical utility of approaches for assessing forearm fracture risk. METHODS: Among 100 postmenopausal women with a distal forearm fracture (cases) and 105 with no osteoporotic fracture (controls), we measured aBMD and assessed radius volumetric bone mineral density, geometry, and microstructure; ultradistal radius failure load was evaluated in microfinite element (microFE) models. RESULTS:Fracture cases had inferior bone density, geometry, microstructure, and strength. The most significant determinant of fracture in five categories were bone density (femoral neck aBMD; odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD), 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.8), geometry (cortical thickness; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), microstructure (structure model index (SMI); OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), and strength (microFE failure load; OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5); the factor-of-risk (applied load in a forward fall / microFE failure load) was 15% worse in cases (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) ranged from 0.62 to 0.68. The predictors of forearm fracture risk that entered a multivariable model were femoral neck aBMD and SMI (combined AUC, 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Detailed bone structure and strength measurements provide insight into forearm fracture pathogenesis, but femoral neck aBMD performs adequately for routine clinical risk assessment.
Authors: B Lawrence Riggs; L Joseph Melton; Richard A Robb; Jon J Camp; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Ann L Oberg; Peggy A Rouleau; Cynthia H McCollough; Sundeep Khosla; Mary L Bouxsein Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: S Kaptoge; L I Benevolenskaya; A K Bhalla; J B Cannata; S Boonen; J A Falch; D Felsenberg; J D Finn; R Nuti; K Hoszowski; R Lorenc; T Miazgowski; I Jajic; G Lyritis; P Masaryk; M Naves-Diaz; G Poor; D M Reid; C Scheidt-Nave; J J Stepan; C J Todd; K Weber; A D Woolf; D K Roy; M Lunt; S R Pye; T W O'neill; A J Silman; J Reeve Journal: Bone Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; B Lawrence Riggs; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Ann L Oberg; Lisa J McDaniel; Margaret Holets; James M Peterson; L Joseph Melton Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jennifer L Kelsey; Mila M Prill; Theresa H M Keegan; Heather E Tanner; Allan L Bernstein; Charles P Quesenberry; Stephen Sidney Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-10-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: X Sherry Liu; Emily M Stein; Bin Zhou; Chiyuan A Zhang; Thomas L Nickolas; Adi Cohen; Valerie Thomas; Donald J McMahon; Felicia Cosman; Jeri Nieves; Elizabeth Shane; X Edward Guo Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: X Sherry Liu; Marcella D Walker; Donald J McMahon; Julia Udesky; George Liu; John P Bilezikian; X Edward Guo Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Elizabeth J Atkinson; Terry M Therneau; L Joseph Melton; Jon J Camp; Sara J Achenbach; Shreyasee Amin; Sundeep Khosta Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Daniel Cejka; Janina M Patsch; Michael Weber; Danielle Diarra; Markus Riegersperger; Zeljko Kikic; Christian Krestan; Claudia Schueller-Weidekamm; Franz Kainberger; Martin Haas Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Marcella D Walker; X Sherry Liu; Bin Zhou; Shivani Agarwal; George Liu; Donald J McMahon; John P Bilezikian; X Edward Guo Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: X Sherry Liu; Ji Wang; Bin Zhou; Emily Stein; Xiutao Shi; Mark Adams; Elizabeth Shane; X Edward Guo Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.741