| Literature DB >> 20670880 |
Margaret Ann Laskey1, Stephanie de Bono, Daan Zhu, Colin N Shaw, Peter J Laskey, Kate A Ward, Ann Prentice.
Abstract
Bone shape, mass, structural geometry, and material properties determine bone strength. This study describes novel software that uses peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) images to quantify cortical bone shape and investigates whether the combination of shape-sensitive and manufacturer's software enhances the characterization of tibiae from contrasting populations. Existing tibial pQCT scans (4% and 50% sites) from Gambian (n=38) and British (n=38) women were used. Bone mass, cross-sectional area (CSA), and geometry were determined using manufacturer's software; cross-sectional shape was quantified using shape-sensitive software. At 4% site, Gambian women had lower total bone mineral content (BMC: -15.4%), CSA (-13.4%), and trabecular bone mineral density (BMD: -19%), but higher cortical subcortical BMD (6.1%). At 50% site, Gambian women had lower cortical BMC (-7.6%), cortical CSA (-12.6%), and mean cortical thickness (-15.0%), but higher cortical BMD (4.9%) and endosteal circumference (8.0%). Shape-sensitive software supported the finding that Gambian women had larger tibial endosteal circumference (9.8%), thinner mean cortical thickness (-26.5%) but smaller periosteal circumference (-5.6%). Shape-sensitive software revealed that Gambian women had tibiae with shorter maximum width (-7.6%) and thinner cortices (-22% to -41.2%) and more closely resembled a circle or ellipse. Significant differences remained after adjusting for age, height, and weight. In conclusion, shape-sensitive software enhanced the characterization of tibiae in 2 contrasting groups of women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20670880 PMCID: PMC2935963 DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2010.05.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Densitom ISSN: 1094-6950 Impact factor: 2.617
Subject Characteristics of the Gambian and Cambridge Young Women
| Gambian (n = 38) | Cambridge (n = 38) | % Diff | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interquartile range | Median | Interquartile range | ||
| Age (yr) | 26.4 | 25.2–27.3 | 31.9 | 29.1–33.5 | −17.4∗∗∗ |
| Height (cm) | 160.3 | 156.2–165.2 | 167.5 | 164.0–171.0 | −4.5∗∗∗ |
| Weight (kg) | 54.6 | 49.0–59.7 | 63.8 | 57.3–70.3 | −16.9∗∗∗ |
| Tibial length (cm) | 390.0 | 375.0–405.0 | 367.5 | 355.0–380.0 | 5.3∗∗∗ |
| Body composition at 50% tibia as CSA | |||||
| Tot bone CSA (cm2) | 518 | 470–562 | 505 | 483–562 | −0.1 |
| Fat CSA (cm2) | 2092 | 1904–2508 | 3038 | 2380–3950 | −32.7∗∗∗ |
| Muscle CSA (cm2) | 3141 | 2750–3783 | 4804 | 4366–5172 | −39.9∗∗∗ |
| Tot leg CSA (cm2) | 5884 | 5218–6763 | 8591 | 7345–9574 | −35.0∗∗∗ |
Significant differences between groups: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Abbr: Tot bone CSA, total cross-sectional area of tibia + fibula; Tot leg CSA, total cross-sectional area of fat + muscle + total bone.
% Diff: percentage difference between groups calculated using linear regression.
Comparison of Trabecular Bone Measurements of the Gambian and Cambridge Young Women at 4% Tibia
| Gambian (n = 38) | Cambridge (n = 38) | % Diff | % Diff adj | Significant predictors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interquartile range | Median | Interquartile range | ||||
| Tot BMC (mg/mm) | 252.5 | 227.5–281.0 | 293.1 | 266.8–329.2 | −15.4∗∗∗ | −5.8 | Wt∗∗∗ |
| Tot CSA (mm2) | 898.1 | 854.0–981.3 | 1032.6 | 963.3–1106.5 | −13.4∗∗∗ | −3.4 | Ht∗∗∗ |
| Tot BMD (mg/cm3) | 281.3 | 258.5–309.5 | 292.5 | 268.9–306.2 | −2.0 | −2.4 | −Ht∗, wt∗∗ |
| Trab BMD (mg/cm3) | 184.6 | 174.2–200.3 | 230.9 | 198.9–255.0 | −19.0∗∗∗ | −20.5∗∗∗ | Wt∗∗ |
| Cortsub Cort BMD (mg/cm3) | 358.7 | 327.4–393.2 | 339.7 | 320.5–361.1 | 6.1∗ | 6.3 | −Ht∗, wt∗∗ |
Significant predictors of group differences are shown (− indicates a negative predictor).
Significance of results: ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Abbr: Tot BMC, total bone mineral content; Tot CSA, total tibia cross-sectional area; Tot BMD, total bone mineral density; Trab BMD, trabecular bone mineral density; Cortsub Cort BMD, cortical + subcortical bone mineral density; Wt, weight; Ht, height.
% Diff: percentage difference between groups calculated using linear regression. Positive differences indicate that Gambian values are greater.
% Diff adj: percentage difference between groups after adjusting for height, weight, and age.
Comparison of pQCT Cortical Bone Measurements of the Gambian and Cambridge Young Women at 50% Tibia Site
| Gambian (n = 38) | Cambridge (n = 38) | % Diff | % Diff adj | Significant predictors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interquartile range | Median | Interquartile range | ||||
| Tot CSA (mm2) | 409.3 | 381.0–444.0 | 407.0 | 383.5–457.0 | −1.8 | 8.7∗ | Wt∗∗, ht∗∗ |
| Cort BMC (mg/mm) | 298.6 | 266.5–326.2 | 316.4 | 297.5–352.4 | −7.6∗∗ | 0.9 | Wt∗∗, ht∗ |
| Cort CSA (mm2) | 247.1 | 224.3–272.8 | 274.3 | 261.8–304.0 | −12.6∗∗∗ | −4.1 | Wt∗∗ |
| Cort BMD (mg/cm3) | 1205 | 1189–1218 | 1146 | 1135–1159 | 4.9∗∗∗ | 5.0∗∗∗ | |
| PeriC (mm) | 71.7 | 69.2–74.7 | 71.5 | 69.4–75.8 | −0.9 | 4.4∗ | Ht∗∗, wt∗∗ |
| EndoC (mm) | 45.2 | 40.1–48.2 | 41.2 | 38.7–43.5 | 8.0∗∗ | 14.7∗∗∗ | Ht∗ |
| Mean Cort thk (mm) | 4.32 | 3.84–4.55 | 4.92 | 4.73–5.28 | −15.0∗∗∗ | −12.4∗∗ | Wt∗ |
| SSI (mm3) | 1660 | 1477–1857 | 1543 | 1438–1934 | 2.1 | 16.7∗∗ | Ht∗∗, wt∗∗ |
Significant predictors of group differences are shown (− indicates inverse relationship).
Significance of results indicated: ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Abbr: Tot CSA, total cross-sectional area; Cort BMC, cortical bone mineral content; Cort CSA, cortical cross-sectional area; Cort BMD, cortical bone mineral density; PeriC, periosteal circumference; EndoC, endosteal circumference; Cort thk, cortical thickness; SSI, strength strain index; wt, weight; ht, height.
% Diff: percentage difference between groups calculated using linear regression. Positive differences indicate that Gambian values are greater.
% Diff adj: percentage difference between groups calculated after adjusting for weight, height, and age.
Fig. 1Cartoon representations of tibiae at 50% site from the Gambian and Cambridge women using (A) data derived from manufacturer's software (Table 3) and (B) using data derived from manufacturer's software and shape-sensitive data (Table 4) combined. For comparison, actual peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) images, typical of each of the groups, are shown (C). The cartoons are not drawn to scale. Darker colors are used to represent more dense bone.
Shape Analysis Results for Gambian and Cambridge Young Women at 50% Tibia
| Gambian (n = 38) | Cambridge (n = 38) | % Diff | % Diff adj | Significant variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interquartile range | Median | Interquartile range | ||||
| Max diam (mm) | 25.7 | 24.8–27.6 | 27.9 | 26.9–28.9 | −7.6∗∗∗ | −4.2 | Ht∗, wt∗ |
| Min diam (mm) | 17.8 | 16.8–18.9 | 17.2 | 16.0–18.3 | 2.6 | 11.0∗∗ | Wt∗ |
| PeriC (mm) | 91.5 | 86.5–95.0 | 95.0 | 91.5–99.5 | −5.6 ∗∗∗ | 1.3 | Ht∗∗, wt∗∗ |
| EndoC (mm) | 54.5 | 47.5–60.5 | 49.5 | 45.5–53.5 | 9.9∗∗ | 17.8∗∗∗ | Ht∗∗ |
| Ant Cort thk (mm) | 7.62 | 6.80–8.25 | 11.42 | 10.69–12.30 | −41.2∗∗∗ | −41.1∗∗∗ | |
| Post Cort thk (mm) | 4.27 | 2.69–6.33 | 5.30 | 4.61–6.10 | −22.2∗∗∗ | −28.0∗∗∗ | Wt∗∗ |
| Min Cort thk (mm) | 2.24 | 2.06–2.50 | 2.76 | 2.50–3.16 | −21.5∗∗∗ | −18.3∗∗ | |
| Mean Cort thk (mm) | 4.15 | 3.65–4.40 | 5.36 | 5.08–5.67 | −26.5∗∗∗ | −25.1∗∗∗ | Wt∗∗ |
| Av E Ellip (mm2) | 10.5 | 9.1–12.5 | 12.03 | 11.6–13.0 | −14.2∗∗∗ | −13.3∗∗∗ | |
| Av E Circ (mm2) | 0.045 | 0.04–05 | 0.057 | 0.05–0.06 | −23.1∗∗∗ | −18.0∗∗ | |
Significance between groups and significance of explanatory variables (in brackets in column 7): ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Significant predictors after correcting for height, weight, and age are shown.
Positive difference indicates that Gambian values are greater.
Abbr: Max diam, maximum diameter; Min diam, minimum diameter; PeriC, periosteal circumference; EndoC, endosteal circumference; Ant Cort thk, anterior cortical thickness; Post Cort thk, posterior cortical thickness; Min Cort thk, minimum cortical thickness; Av E Circ, deviation of bone shape from circle; Av E Ellip, deviation of bone shape from ellipse.
% Diff: percentage difference (sympercent) between Gambian and Cambridge women calculated using simple regression with all variable in natural logs (see Materials and Methods).
% Diff adj: percentage difference between groups calculated using multivariate analyses after adjusting for current height, weight, and age.