Literature DB >> 8661481

Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis.

S L Greenspan1, L Maitland-Ramsey, E Myers.   

Abstract

Vertebral osteoporosis accounts for over 500,000 spinal fractures annually, the majority of which occur in older women. Despite these statistics, data regarding the rate of spinal bone loss in this population are conflicting. Moreover, the site of skeletal evaluation may significantly alter classification of osteoporosis in this age group. To examine trabecular-rich spinal bone loss with a measurement less affected by age-related artifacts than the AP spine, we measured lateral lumbar spine bone density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in 120 healthy, ambulatory, community-dwelling women 65 years of age and older (mean 70 +/- 5 years, range 65-88). We also examined cortical-rich sites in the forearm and total body along with AP spine and femoral BMD to assess the impact of site specificity using the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of osteoporosis. Significant losses in BMD were observed at the lateral spine (-1.1%/year, P < 0.01), forearm (-0. 77%/year, P </= 0.01), total hip (-0.75%/year, P </= 0.01), femoral neck (-0.70%/year, P </= 0.05), and trochanter (-0.78%/year, P </= 0. 01), but not the AP spine. Using the WHO criteria, lateral spine BMD determinations classified 66% of women with osteoporosis in contrast to 29% using the AP projection. Osteoporosis was diagnosed in 55% of women using measurements of the femoral neck, 43% using the total radius, and 19% using the total body. We conclude that elderly women lose bone at trabecular- and cortical-rich sites (lateral spine and total radius, respectively) in addition to sustaining significant age-related bone loss at mixed cortical/trabecular sites such as the hip. Classification of osteoporosis in this age group more than doubles using lateral versus AP spinal projections, supporting the necessity of developing more uniform agreement on site-specific analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8661481     DOI: 10.1007/bf02509439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int        ISSN: 0171-967X            Impact factor:   4.333


  31 in total

1.  The effect of overlying calcification on lumbar bone densitometry.

Authors:  P J Drinka; A A DeSmet; S F Bauwens; A Rogot
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Comparative assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography.

Authors:  C C Glüer; P Steiger; R Selvidge; K Elliesen-Kliefoth; C Hayashi; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Lateral dual-photon absorptiometry: a new technique to measure the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine.

Authors:  D Uebelhart; F Duboeuf; P J Meunier; P D Delmas
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 4.  Assessment of involutional bone loss: methodological and conceptual problems.

Authors:  S Adami; J A Kanis
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 5.  Treatment of osteoporosis in elderly women.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1995-02-27       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision.

Authors:  K Lai; M Rencken; B L Drinkwater; C H Chesnut
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Osteoporosis: diagnosis with lateral and posteroanterior dual x-ray absorptiometry compared with quantitative CT.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; S K Grimston; K C Fischer; R Pacifici
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  T L Kelly; D M Slovik; D A Schoenfeld; R M Neer
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  Importance of gonadal steroids to bone mass in men with hyperprolactinemic hypogonadism.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; D S Oppenheim; A Klibanski
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Sex differences in bone mineral density in 1653 men and women in the sixth through tenth decades of life: the Rancho Bernardo Study.

Authors:  B A Blunt; M R Klauber; E L Barrett-Connor; S L Edelstein
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  An update on the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.592

2.  The increasing use of peripheral bone densitometry.

Authors:  T Masud; R M Francis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-08-12

3.  Risk factors for low bone mineral density among a large group of Norwegian women with fractures.

Authors:  L M Omland; G S Tell; S Ofjord; A Skag
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  The tale of the T-score: review and perspective.

Authors:  Kenneth G Faulkner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry: part 1: errors and diagnosis.

Authors:  K Engelke; C-C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Bone mineral density & T-scores.

Authors:  R B Mazess
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Animal models for fracture treatment in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Marcus Egermann; J Goldhahn; E Schneider
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-05       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Optimising the management of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Ziad Farrah; Ali Sm Jawad
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 9.  Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Authors:  Nelson B Watts
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by calcaneal ultrasound, metacarpal digital X-ray radiogrammetry and phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry: a comparative study.

Authors:  Steven Boonen; Jos Nijs; Herman Borghs; Herman Peeters; Dirk Vanderschueren; Frank P Luyten
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.