Literature DB >> 3491831

Single and dual energy tomographic analysis of spinal trabecular bone: a comparative study in normal and osteoporotic women.

R Pacifici, N Susman, P L Carr, S J Birge, L V Avioli.   

Abstract

To investigate the effects of age on rates of bone loss and the relationship between amount of trabecular bone and clinical severity of osteoporosis, trabecular mineral density of the lumbar spine (VMD) was measured in 55 osteoporotic women and 133 healthy women with both single energy (SE) and dual energy (DE) quantitative computed tomography (QCT). The amount of marrow fat was indirectly estimated by the difference (delta) between DE and SE VMD values. The rate of bone loss in the normal women was 1.14%/yr with SE and 1.03%/yr with DE QCT. Osteoporotic patients had a VMD decline of 1.62%/yr with SE and 1.17%/yr with DE QCT. Osteoporotic patients had significantly lower (P less than 0.0001) mean SE and DE VMD at any age, but VMD was not significantly different among groups characterized by different number of fractures or different radiographic severity of fractures. The threshold values of VMD below which the risk of having fractures was increased were 99.8 and 118.7 mg/cm3, respectively, for SE and DE QCT. Dispersion around the mean, overlap between osteoporotic and healthy women, and the incidence of asymptomatic osteoporosis were greater with DE than SE QCT. Osteoporotic women had higher delta values (P less than 0.05) compared to normal women, but delta did not correlate with clinical severity of osteoporosis. The results indicate that factors in addition to the amount of spinal trabecular bone determine the number and severity of fractures in osteoporotic women; DE QCT reduce the VMD underestimation due to intravertebral fat content, but not the overlap between osteoporotic and normal women; and further anatomical studies of osteoporotic vertebrae are necessary to investigate the effect of age on intravertebral fat.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3491831     DOI: 10.1210/jcem-64-2-209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 0021-972X            Impact factor:   5.958


  20 in total

Review 1.  Current methods and advances in bone densitometry.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; C C Gluer; S Majumdar; B A Blunt; H K Genant
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Compact and trabecular components of the spine using quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  T Sandor; D Felsenberg; W A Kalender; A Clain; E Brown
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Normal bone density in Irish women: is American normative data suitable for use in Ireland?

Authors:  J Harbison; L Daly; B Murphy; C McCoy; J Masterson
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 1.568

4.  Correlation of cervical endplate strength with CT measured subchondral bone density.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Ordway; Yen-Mou Lu; Xingkai Zhang; Chin-Chang Cheng; Huang Fang; Amir H Fayyazi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Strategies for prevention of osteoporosis and hip fracture.

Authors:  M R Law; N J Wald; T W Meade
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-08-24

Review 6.  Quantitative computed tomography: update 1987.

Authors:  H K Genant; P Steiger; J E Block; C C Glueer; B Ettinger; S T Harris
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Dual-energy CT-scan quantification of recalcification in osteolyses of the vertebral body due to mammary carcinomas in the course of antineoplastic treatment.

Authors:  W Crone-Münzebrock; U M Carl
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  1990 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 8.  Bone mass measurement, fracture risk, and screening for osteoporosis.

Authors:  D I Rosenthal; A N Tosteson
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 9.  Bone density measurements.

Authors:  E M Alhava
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 10.  When bone mass fails to predict bone failure.

Authors:  S M Ott
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.