PURPOSE: We investigated the involvement of sarcopenia in middle-aged and elderly women with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). METHODS: A total of 971 women (mean age 70.4 years) were included in our study. These included 87 cases of DLS (mean 73.8 years) and 884 controls (69.8). Lumbar and femur BMD was measured for all participants using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We used a bioelectrical impedance analyzer to analyze body composition, including appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (SMI; appendicular lean mass (kg)/(height (m))2. We determined bone density and skeletal muscle mass in both groups and determined the prevalence of sarcopenia. We examined the correlation between bone density and appendicular muscle mass in both groups. We also examined factors related to scoliosis using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The DLS group showed significantly higher lumbar BMD, lower femur BMD, lower lean mass arm, and lower lean mass leg, and lower lean mass trunk (p < 0.05). Sarcopenia prevalence (SMI < 5.75) was 59.8% in DLS subjects and 42.8% in controls, revealing a high prevalence in DLS (p < 0.05). In both groups, lumbar and femur BMD were positively correlated with appendicular muscle mass. By logistic regression analysis, trunk muscle mass was detected as a risk factor for DLS independent of age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged and elderly women, prevalence of sarcopenia was 59.8% in DLS cases and 42.8% in controls, which revealed a high prevalence in DLS. A decrease in trunk muscle was a significant risk factor for DLS that was independent of age. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: We investigated the involvement of sarcopenia in middle-aged and elderly women with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). METHODS: A total of 971 women (mean age 70.4 years) were included in our study. These included 87 cases of DLS (mean 73.8 years) and 884 controls (69.8). Lumbar and femur BMD was measured for all participants using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We used a bioelectrical impedance analyzer to analyze body composition, including appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (SMI; appendicular lean mass (kg)/(height (m))2. We determined bone density and skeletal muscle mass in both groups and determined the prevalence of sarcopenia. We examined the correlation between bone density and appendicular muscle mass in both groups. We also examined factors related to scoliosis using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The DLS group showed significantly higher lumbar BMD, lower femur BMD, lower lean mass arm, and lower lean mass leg, and lower lean mass trunk (p < 0.05). Sarcopenia prevalence (SMI < 5.75) was 59.8% in DLS subjects and 42.8% in controls, revealing a high prevalence in DLS (p < 0.05). In both groups, lumbar and femur BMD were positively correlated with appendicular muscle mass. By logistic regression analysis, trunk muscle mass was detected as a risk factor for DLS independent of age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged and elderly women, prevalence of sarcopenia was 59.8% in DLS cases and 42.8% in controls, which revealed a high prevalence in DLS. A decrease in trunk muscle was a significant risk factor for DLS that was independent of age. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Avraam Ploumis; Hong Liu; Amir A Mehbod; Ensor E Transfeldt; Robert B Winter Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: K Sanada; M Miyachi; M Tanimoto; K Yamamoto; H Murakami; S Okumura; Y Gando; K Suzuki; I Tabata; M Higuchi Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Keith Bridwell; John R Dimar; William Horton; Sigurd Berven; Frank Schwab Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: M Hongo; E Itoi; M Sinaki; N Miyakoshi; Y Shimada; S Maekawa; K Okada; Y Mizutani Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2007-06-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Ian Janssen; Richard N Baumgartner; Robert Ross; Irwin H Rosenberg; Ronenn Roubenoff Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 4.897