Literature DB >> 3585503

Usefulness of regional bone measurements in patients with osteoporotic fractures of the spine and distal forearm.

L Nilas, J Pødenphant, B J Riis, A Gotfredsen, C Christiansen.   

Abstract

Bone mineral mass was measured in normal subjects and osteoporotic patients at two forearm sites (proximal and distal of the 8 mm site between the two forearm bones) by single photon absorptiometry and in the spine and whole body by dual photon absorptiometry. There were no signs of preferential low spinal bone mass in 28 patients with vertebral fractures. Their bone mass was at all sites 26% to 37% lower than the premenopausal mean value and 7% to 13% lower than in age-matched normal women. In 45 patients with forearm fractures bone reduction was also universal but only 3% to 6% lower than in healthy women of comparable age. The spinal bone mass in all the patients was significantly related to both forearm measurements with coefficients of correlation of 0.58-0.61 and s.e.e. of 18%. Compared to the premenopausal normal range the distal forearm site had a greater sensitivity in identifying patients with vertebral fractures than had the spinal measurement (chi-square test, p less than 0.01). We thus conclude that patients with vertebral fractures have universal osteoporosis and that measurement of spinal BMC had no predictive advantages over that of the forearm bone mass for population studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3585503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  23 in total

1.  Metabolic markers for the early diagnosis of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  G Isaia; M Mussetta; M Di Stefano; A Sciolla; S Triolo; G M Molinatti
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.256

2.  Bone diminution of osteoporotic females at different skeletal sites.

Authors:  C Mautalen; E Vega; G Ghiringhelli; G Fromm
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Which bone to measure?

Authors:  A G Need; B E Nordin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Correlations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and single photon absorptiometry with spinal and non-spinal fractures.

Authors:  F W Lafferty; D Y Rowland
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Unequal decrease in bone density of lumbar spine and ultradistal radius in Colles' and vertebral fracture syndromes.

Authors:  R Eastell; H W Wahner; W M O'Fallon; P C Amadio; L J Melton; B L Riggs
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 14.808

7.  Usefulness of bone mass measurements by photon absorptiometry.

Authors:  C Hassager; C Christiansen
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

8.  Bone density in osteogenesis imperfecta may well be normal.

Authors:  C R Paterson; P A Mole
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 9.  When bone mass fails to predict bone failure.

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

10.  Role of peak bone mass and bone loss in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 12 year study.

Authors:  M A Hansen; K Overgaard; B J Riis; C Christiansen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-10-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.