OBJECTIVE: Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) have an elevated fracture risk despite normal areal bone mineral density (aBMD). The study objective was to compare trabecular bone microarchitecture of postmenopausal women with type 2 DM and women without type 2 DM. METHODS: An extremity 1T magnetic resonance imaging system was used to acquire axial images (195 × 195 × 1,000 μm(3) voxel size) of the distal radius of women recruited from outpatient clinics or by community advertisement. Image segmentation yielded geometric, topologic, and stereologic outcomes, i.e., number and size of trabecular bone network holes (marrow spaces), endosteal area, trabecular bone volume fraction, nodal and branch density, and apparent trabecular thickness, separation, and number. Lumbar spine (LS) and proximal femur BMD were measured with dual x-ray absorptiometry. Microarchitectural differences were assessed using linear regression and adjusted for percent body fat, ethnicity, timed up-and-go test, Charlson Index, and calcium and vitamin D intake; aBMD differences were adjusted for body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Women with type 2 DM (n = 30, mean ± SD age 71.0 ± 4.8 years) had larger holes (+13.3%; P = 0.001) within the trabecular bone network than women without type 2 DM (n = 30, mean ± SD age 70.7 ± 4.9 years). LS aBMD was greater in women with type 2 DM; however, after adjustment for BMI, LS aBMD did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: In women with type 2 DM, the average hole size within the trabecular bone network at the distal radius is greater compared to controls. This may explain the elevated fracture risk in this population.
OBJECTIVE: Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) have an elevated fracture risk despite normal areal bone mineral density (aBMD). The study objective was to compare trabecular bone microarchitecture of postmenopausal women with type 2 DM and women without type 2 DM. METHODS: An extremity 1T magnetic resonance imaging system was used to acquire axial images (195 × 195 × 1,000 μm(3) voxel size) of the distal radius of women recruited from outpatient clinics or by community advertisement. Image segmentation yielded geometric, topologic, and stereologic outcomes, i.e., number and size of trabecular bone network holes (marrow spaces), endosteal area, trabecular bone volume fraction, nodal and branch density, and apparent trabecular thickness, separation, and number. Lumbar spine (LS) and proximal femur BMD were measured with dual x-ray absorptiometry. Microarchitectural differences were assessed using linear regression and adjusted for percent body fat, ethnicity, timed up-and-go test, Charlson Index, and calcium and vitamin D intake; aBMD differences were adjusted for body mass index (BMI). RESULTS:Women with type 2 DM (n = 30, mean ± SD age 71.0 ± 4.8 years) had larger holes (+13.3%; P = 0.001) within the trabecular bone network than women without type 2 DM (n = 30, mean ± SD age 70.7 ± 4.9 years). LS aBMD was greater in women with type 2 DM; however, after adjustment for BMI, LS aBMD did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: In women with type 2 DM, the average hole size within the trabecular bone network at the distal radius is greater compared to controls. This may explain the elevated fracture risk in this population.
Authors: Galateia J Kazakia; Benedict Hyun; Andrew J Burghardt; Roland Krug; David C Newitt; Anne E de Papp; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Nicolas Vilayphiou; Stephanie Boutroy; Pawel Szulc; Bert van Rietbergen; Francoise Munoz; Pierre D Delmas; Roland Chapurlat Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Helene Follet; Stéphanie Viguet-Carrin; Brigitte Burt-Pichat; Baptiste Dépalle; Yohann Bala; Evelyne Gineyts; Francoise Munoz; Monique Arlot; Georges Boivin; Roland D Chapurlat; Pierre D Delmas; Mary L Bouxsein Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: E W Yu; M S Putman; N Derrico; G Abrishamanian-Garcia; J S Finkelstein; M L Bouxsein Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Lamya Karim; Julia Moulton; Miranda Van Vliet; Kelsey Velie; Ann Robbins; Fatemeh Malekipour; Ayesha Abdeen; Douglas Ayres; Mary L Bouxsein Journal: Bone Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Federico Ponti; Sara Guerri; Claudia Sassi; Giuseppe Battista; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Alberto Bazzocchi Journal: Endocrine Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Gregory Chang; Sean Boone; Dimitri Martel; Chamith S Rajapakse; Robert S Hallyburton; Mitch Valko; Stephen Honig; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jessica F Starr; Leonardo C Bandeira; Sanchita Agarwal; Ankit M Shah; Kyle K Nishiyama; Yizhong Hu; Donald J McMahon; X Edward Guo; Shonni J Silverberg; Mishaela R Rubin Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: J M Pritchard; A Papaioannou; C Tomowich; L M Giangregorio; S A Atkinson; K A Beattie; J D Adachi; J DeBeer; M Winemaker; V Avram; H P Schwarcz Journal: Bone Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 4.398