Literature DB >> 8115610

Gender differences in vertebral sizes in adults: biomechanical implications.

V Gilsanz1, M I Boechat, R Gilsanz, M L Loro, T F Roe, W G Goodman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if vertebral bone densities or vertebral body sizes contribute to gender differences in vertebral bone mass in adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancellous and cortical bone densities and dimensions of three lumbar vertebrae in 25 women and 18 men were measured with quantitative computed tomography (CT) and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Neither cancellous nor cortical vertebral bone densities differed in healthy adults. Vertebral bodies in women had lower cross-sectional areas (8.22 cm2 +/- 1.09 [standard deviation] versus 10.98 cm2 +/- 1.25, P < .001) and volumes (22.42 cm3 +/- 2.40 versus 30.86 cm3 +/- 2.6, P < .001). These differences also were evident in men and women matched for age, weight, vertebral bone density, and vertebral body height. Overall cross-sectional areas of vertebral bodies are 25% smaller in women than men. Vertebral bone densities do not differ between sexes. Estimates of mechanical stress within vertebral bodies are 30%-40% higher in women than men for equivalent applied loads.
CONCLUSION: Smaller vertebral bodies in women confer biomechanical disadvantages that may contribute to more vertebral fractures in elderly women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8115610     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.190.3.8115610

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  41 in total

Review 1.  Bone geometry and skeletal fragility.

Authors:  Mary L Bouxsein; David Karasik
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Interaction between playing golf and HRT on vertebral bone properties in post-menopausal women measured by QCT.

Authors:  P Eser; J Cook; J Black; R Iles; R M Daly; R Ptasznik; S L Bass
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Time dependency of bone density estimation from computed tomography with intravenous contrast agent administration.

Authors:  K Acu; M Scheel; A S Issever
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  In vivo 3D reconstruction of human vertebrae with the three-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry (3D-XA) method.

Authors:  S Kolta; S Quiligotti; A Ruyssen-Witrand; A Amido; D Mitton; A Le Bras; W Skalli; C Roux
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Lumbar spine bone density in Argentine children.

Authors:  H Plotkin; M Núñez; M L Alvarez Filgueira; J R Zanchetta
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 6.  Bone health and the female athlete triad in adolescent athletes.

Authors:  Kathryn E Ackerman; Madhusmita Misra
Journal:  Phys Sportsmed       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.241

7.  Age-related trends in vertebral dimensions.

Authors:  Juho-Antti Junno; Markus Paananen; Jaro Karppinen; Jaakko Niinimäki; Markku Niskanen; Heli Maijanen; Tiina Väre; Marjo-Riitta Järvelin; Miika T Nieminen; Juha Tuukkanen; Christopher Ruff
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 8.  [Fracture diagnosis in osteoporosis].

Authors:  J S Bauer; D Müller; E J Rummeny; T M Link
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 9.  Osteoporosis diagnosis in men: the T-score controversy revisited.

Authors:  Neil Binkley; Robert Adler; John P Bilezikian
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.096

10.  Gender differences in volumetric bone density: a study of opposite-sex twins.

Authors:  Vasi Naganathan; Philip Sambrook
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.