J T Schousboe1,2, O Riekkinen3, J Karjalainen4,3. 1. HealthPartners Institute and Park Nicollet Clinic, 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd, Minneapolis, MN, 55416, USA. schouj@parknicollet.com. 2. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. schouj@parknicollet.com. 3. Bone Index Finland, Ltd, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland.
Abstract
Pulse-echo ultrasonometry can be used as a pre-screen for hip osteoporosis before dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), potentially allowing DXA to be avoided for the majority of post-menopausal women. Pulse-echo ultrasound measures of tibia cortical thickness are also associated with radiographically confirmed prior fractures, independent of femoral neck bone mineral density. INTRODUCTION: To estimate how well a pulse-echo ultrasound device discriminates those who have from those who do not have hip osteoporosis (femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD] or total hip BMD T-score ≤ -2.5), and to estimate the association of pulse-echo ultrasound measures with prevalent (radiographically confirmed) clinical fractures. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-five post-menopausal women age 50 to 89 had femoral neck and total hip BMD measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and pulse-echo ultrasound measures of distal radius, proximal tibia, distal tibia cortical thickness, and multi- and single-site density indices (DI). Using previously published threshold ultrasound values, we estimated the proportion of women who would avoid a follow-up DXA after pulse-echo ultrasonometry, and the sensitivity and specificity of this for the detection of hip osteoporosis. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations of pulse-echo ultrasound measures with radiographically confirmed clinical fractures within the prior 5 years. RESULTS: Using multi-site and single-site DI measures, follow-up DXA could be avoided for 73 and 69 % of individuals, respectively, while detecting hip osteoporosis with 80-82 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity. Radiographically confirmed prior fracture was associated with ultrasound measures of single-site DI (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95 % confidence interval (CI). 1.06 to 2.26) and proximal tibia cortical thickness (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.96), adjusted for age, body mass index, and femoral neck BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse-echo ultrasonometry can be used as an initial screening test for hip osteoporosis. Prospective studies of how well pulse-echo ultrasound measures predict subsequent clinical fractures are warranted.
Pulse-echo ultrasonometry can be used as a pre-screen for hip osteoporosis before dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), potentially allowing DXA to be avoided for the majority of post-menopausal women. Pulse-echo ultrasound measures of tibia cortical thickness are also associated with radiographically confirmed prior fractures, independent of femoral neck bone mineral density. INTRODUCTION: To estimate how well a pulse-echo ultrasound device discriminates those who have from those who do not have hip osteoporosis (femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD] or total hip BMD T-score ≤ -2.5), and to estimate the association of pulse-echo ultrasound measures with prevalent (radiographically confirmed) clinical fractures. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-five post-menopausal women age 50 to 89 had femoral neck and total hip BMD measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and pulse-echo ultrasound measures of distal radius, proximal tibia, distal tibia cortical thickness, and multi- and single-site density indices (DI). Using previously published threshold ultrasound values, we estimated the proportion of women who would avoid a follow-up DXA after pulse-echo ultrasonometry, and the sensitivity and specificity of this for the detection of hip osteoporosis. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations of pulse-echo ultrasound measures with radiographically confirmed clinical fractures within the prior 5 years. RESULTS: Using multi-site and single-site DI measures, follow-up DXA could be avoided for 73 and 69 % of individuals, respectively, while detecting hip osteoporosis with 80-82 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity. Radiographically confirmed prior fracture was associated with ultrasound measures of single-site DI (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95 % confidence interval (CI). 1.06 to 2.26) and proximal tibia cortical thickness (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.96), adjusted for age, body mass index, and femoral neck BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse-echo ultrasonometry can be used as an initial screening test for hip osteoporosis. Prospective studies of how well pulse-echo ultrasound measures predict subsequent clinical fractures are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone mineral density; Cortical thickness; Osteoporosis; Pulse-echo ultrasound; Quantitative ultrasound
Authors: John A Kanis; Anders Oden; Helena Johansson; Fredrik Borgström; Oskar Ström; Eugene McCloskey Journal: Bone Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Janne Karjalainen; Ossi Riekkinen; Juha Töyräs; Heikki Kröger; Jukka Jurvelin Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Didier B Hans; John A Shepherd; Elliott N Schwartz; David M Reid; Glen M Blake; John N Fordham; Thomas Fuerst; Peyman Hadji; Akira Itabashi; Marc-Antoine Krieg; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: J M Pritchard; L M Giangregorio; G Ioannidis; A Papaioannou; J D Adachi; W D Leslie Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J P Karjalainen; O Riekkinen; J Töyräs; M Hakulinen; H Kröger; T Rikkonen; K Salovaara; J S Jurvelin Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-01-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E V McCloskey; J A Kanis; A Odén; N C Harvey; D Bauer; J González-Macias; D Hans; S Kaptoge; M A Krieg; T Kwok; F Marin; A Moayyeri; E Orwoll; C Gluёr; H Johansson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M Di Paola; D Gatti; O Viapiana; L Cianferotti; L Cavalli; C Caffarelli; F Conversano; E Quarta; P Pisani; G Girasole; A Giusti; M Manfredini; G Arioli; M Matucci-Cerinic; G Bianchi; R Nuti; S Gonnelli; M L Brandi; M Muratore; M Rossini Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Erkki Soini; Ossi Riekkinen; Heikki Kröger; Petri Mankinen; Taru Hallinen; Janne P Karjalainen Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2018-05-29
Authors: Florian Schmidutz; Christoph Schopf; Shuang G Yan; Marc-Daniel Ahrend; Christoph Ihle; Christoph Sprecher Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: E Michael Lewiecki; Jesse D Ortendahl; Jacqueline Vanderpuye-Orgle; Andreas Grauer; Jorge Arellano; Jeffrey Lemay; Amanda L Harmon; Michael S Broder; Andrea J Singer Journal: JBMR Plus Date: 2019-05-13