Ki Hyuk Sung1, Young Choi2, Gyeong Hee Cho1, Chin Youb Chung1, Moon Seok Park3, Kyoung Min Lee1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-Gu, Sungnam, Gyeonggi, 13620, South Korea. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kosin University Gaspel Hospital, Busan, South Korea. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-Gu, Sungnam, Gyeonggi, 13620, South Korea. pmsmed@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the correlation between central and peripheral bone mineral density (BMD) of the ankle joint, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We also investigated whether peripheral ankle BMD could be used to identify individuals who were diagnosed with osteoporosis, using central DXA. METHODS: We recruited 134 volunteers aged 20-90 years who agreed to participate in this study. Central BMD of the lumbar spine and left femur, and peripheral BMD of the medial malleolus, distal tibia, lateral malleolus, and talus were measured with DXA. RESULTS: Among the peripheral sites of the ankle, the highest and lowest BMD were observed in the talus and lateral malleolus, respectively. All peripheral DXA measurements of the ankle joint were significantly correlated with central DXA measurements. There was a good correlation (r: 0.656-0.725) between peripheral and central BMD for the older age group (> 50 years), but fair-to-good correlation (r: 0.263-0.654) for the younger age group (< 50 years). The cut-off values for peripheral BMD of the ankle joint between osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis were 0.548 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 89.0%; specificity, 69.0%) for the medial malleolus, 0.626 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 83.3%; specificity, 82.8%) for the distal tibia, 0.47 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 100.0%; specificity, 65.5%) for the lateral malleolus, and 0.973 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 72.2%; specificity, 83.6%) for the talus (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed good correlation between peripheral BMD around ankle joint and central BMD for older age group. Further study is required to use the ankle DXA as a valid clinical tool for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and fracture risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the correlation between central and peripheral bone mineral density (BMD) of the ankle joint, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We also investigated whether peripheral ankle BMD could be used to identify individuals who were diagnosed with osteoporosis, using central DXA. METHODS: We recruited 134 volunteers aged 20-90 years who agreed to participate in this study. Central BMD of the lumbar spine and left femur, and peripheral BMD of the medial malleolus, distal tibia, lateral malleolus, and talus were measured with DXA. RESULTS: Among the peripheral sites of the ankle, the highest and lowest BMD were observed in the talus and lateral malleolus, respectively. All peripheral DXA measurements of the ankle joint were significantly correlated with central DXA measurements. There was a good correlation (r: 0.656-0.725) between peripheral and central BMD for the older age group (> 50 years), but fair-to-good correlation (r: 0.263-0.654) for the younger age group (< 50 years). The cut-off values for peripheral BMD of the ankle joint between osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis were 0.548 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 89.0%; specificity, 69.0%) for the medial malleolus, 0.626 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 83.3%; specificity, 82.8%) for the distal tibia, 0.47 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 100.0%; specificity, 65.5%) for the lateral malleolus, and 0.973 g/cm2 (sensitivity, 72.2%; specificity, 83.6%) for the talus (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed good correlation between peripheral BMD around ankle joint and central BMD for older age group. Further study is required to use the ankle DXA as a valid clinical tool for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and fracture risk assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ankle joint; Bone mineral density; Central; Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; Osteoporosis; Peripheral
Authors: Annie W C Kung; Chih-Hsing Wu; Akira Itabashi; Joon Kiong Lee; Hyoung Moo Park; Yanling Zhao; Wing P Chan; David L Kendler; Edward S Leib; E Michael Lewiecki; John P Bilezikian; Sanford Baim Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: S Y Lee; S-S Kwon; H S Kim; J H Yoo; J Kim; J Y Kim; B C Min; S J Moon; K H Sung Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Astrid Ellen Grams; Rafael Rehwald; Alexander Bartsch; Sarah Honold; Christian Franz Freyschlag; Michael Knoflach; Elke Ruth Gizewski; Bernhard Glodny Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: D Picard; J P Brown; L Rosenthall; M Couturier; J Lévesque; M Dumont; L-G Ste-Marie; A Tenenhouse; S Dodin Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.963