Literature DB >> 23312957

Clinical assessment of the 1/3 radius using a new desktop ultrasonic bone densitometer.

Emily M Stein1, Fernando Rosete, Polly Young, Mafo Kamanda-Kosseh, Donald J McMahon, Gangming Luo, Jonathan J Kaufman, Elizabeth Shane, Robert S Siffert.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the capability of a novel ultrasound device to clinically estimate bone mineral density (BMD) at the 1/3 radius. The device rests on a desktop and is portable, and permits real-time evaluation of the radial BMD. The device measures two net time delay (NTD) parameters, NTD(DW) and NTD(CW). NTD(DW) is defined as the difference between the transit time of an ultrasound pulse to travel through soft-tissue, cortex and medullary cavity, and the transit time through soft tissue only of equal overall distance. NTD(CW) is defined as the difference between the transit time of an ultrasound pulse to travel through soft-tissue and cortex only, and the transit time through soft tissue only again of equal overall distance. The square root of the product of these two parameters is a measure of the radial BMD at the 1/3 location as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). A clinical IRB-approved study measured ultrasonically 60 adults at the 1/3 radius. BMD was also measured at the same anatomic site and time using DXA. A linear regression using NTD produced a linear correlation coefficient of 0.93 (p < 0.001). These results are consistent with previously reported simulation and in vitro studies. In conclusion, although X-ray methods are effective in bone mass assessment, osteoporosis remains one of the largest undiagnosed and under-diagnosed diseases in the world today. The research described here should enable significant expansion of diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis through a desktop device that ultrasonically assesses bone mass at the 1/3 radius.
Copyright © 2013 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23312957      PMCID: PMC3570600          DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.09.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  38 in total

1.  Computational methods for ultrasonic bone assessment.

Authors:  G Luo; J J Kaufman; A Chiabrera; B Bianco; J H Kinney; D Haupt; J T Ryaby; R S Siffert
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 2.  Ultrasonic bone assessment: "the time has come".

Authors:  Robert S Siffert; Jonathan J Kaufman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 3.  Bone strength: current concepts.

Authors:  Charles H Turner
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  A portable real-time ultrasonic bone densitometer.

Authors:  Jonathan J Kaufman; Gangming Luo; Robert S Siffert
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions.

Authors:  Marc-Antoine Krieg; Reinhart Barkmann; Stefano Gonnelli; Alison Stewart; Douglas C Bauer; Luis Del Rio Barquero; Jonathan J Kaufman; Roman Lorenc; Paul D Miller; Wojciech P Olszynski; Catalina Poiana; Anne-Marie Schott; E Michael Lewiecki; Didier Hans
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.617

6.  Dynamic relationships of trabecular bone density, architecture, and strength in a computational model of osteopenia.

Authors:  R S Siffert; G M Luo; S C Cowin; J J Kaufman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 7.  Ultrasound assessment of bone.

Authors:  J J Kaufman; T A Einhorn
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone.

Authors:  C M Langton; S B Palmer; R W Porter
Journal:  Eng Med       Date:  1984-04

9.  Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures.

Authors:  Olof Johnell; John A Kanis; Anders Oden; Helena Johansson; Chris De Laet; Pierre Delmas; John A Eisman; Seiko Fujiwara; Heikki Kroger; Dan Mellstrom; Pierre J Meunier; L Joseph Melton; Terry O'Neill; Huibert Pols; Jonathan Reeve; Alan Silman; Alan Tenenhouse
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2005-03-07       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Ability of four different techniques of measuring bone mass to diagnose vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  S M Ott; R F Kilcoyne; C H Chesnut
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  5 in total

1.  Multi-frequency axial transmission bone ultrasonometer.

Authors:  Alexey Tatarinov; Vladimir Egorov; Noune Sarvazyan; Armen Sarvazyan
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 2.  Update on Imaging-Based Measurement of Bone Mineral Density and Quality.

Authors:  Thomas M Link; Galateia Kazakia
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Osteoporosis detection in postmenopausal women using axial transmission multi-frequency bone ultrasonometer: clinical findings.

Authors:  Vladimir Egorov; Alexey Tatarinov; Noune Sarvazyan; Randee Wood; Leonid Magidenko; Shreyasee Amin; Sundeep Khosla; Richard J Ruh; Jennifer M Ruh; Armen Sarvazyan
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 2.890

4.  Radial quantitative ultrasound and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: intermethod agreement for bone status assessment in children.

Authors:  Kar Hau Chong; Bee Koon Poh; Nor Aini Jamil; Nor Azmi Kamaruddin; Paul Deurenberg
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools.

Authors:  Palak Choksi; Karl J Jepsen; Gregory A Clines
Journal:  Clin Diabetes Endocrinol       Date:  2018-05-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.