Areal Bone Mineral Density of the Lumbar Spine in 80 Premature Newborns. A Prospective and Longitudinal Study

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Yeste ◽  
J. Almar ◽  
M. Clemente ◽  
Μ. Gussinyé ◽  
L. Audi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Areal Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Premature Newborns

scholarly journals SAT0477 A TWO-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY COMPLETION, LONGITUNEAL STUDY, THE DIFFERENCE IN BONE LOSS IN PATIENTS WITH EROSIVE AND NON-EROSIVE HAND OSTEOARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1195.2-1195
Author(s):  
K. Pavelka ◽  
L. Šenolt ◽  
O. Sleglova ◽  
J. Baloun ◽  
O. Růžičková
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Hand Osteoarthritis ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Erosive Disease ◽  
Femur Neck ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology

Background:Hand osteoarthritis (OA) and its more severe subset erosive hand OA are common causes of pain and morbidity. Some metabolic factors were suggested to be implicated in erosive disease. Few studies investigated differences in systemic bone loss between erosive and non-erosive hand OA.Objectives:To compare the change of bone mineral density (BMD) between patients with erosive and non-erosive hand OA in a two-year longitudinal study.Methods:Consecutive patients with symptomatic HOA fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria were included in this study. Erosive hand OA was defined by at least one erosive interphalangeal joint. All patients underwent clinical assessments of joint swelling and radiographs of both hands. DEXA examination of lumbar spine, total femur and femur neck was performed at the baseline and after two years.Results:Altogether, 141patients (15 male) with symptomatic nodal HOA were included in this study and followed between April 2012 and January 2019. Out of these patients, 80 had erosive disease after two years. The disease duration (p<0.01) was significantly higher in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease at baseline.Osteoporosis (T-score <-2.5 SD) was diagnosed in 12.5% (9/72) of patients with erosive hand OA and in 8.06% (5/57) of patients with non-erosive hand OA at baseline. BMD was significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease at baseline (lumbar spine: 1.05g/cm2 vs. 1.13 g/cm2, p<0.05, total femur: 0.90 g/cm2 vs. 0.97 g/cm2, p<0.01 and femur neck: 0.86 g/cm2 vs. 0.91, p<0.05). T-scores of lumbar spine (-0.96 vs. -0.41 SD, p<0.05), total femur (-0.69 vs. -0.33 SD, p<0.05) and femur neck (-1.14 vs. -0.88 SD, p<0.05) were also significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease.Two years, the BMD remained also significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease (lumbar spine: 1.05g/cm2 vs. 1.14 g/cm2, p<0.05, total femur: 0.92 g/cm2 vs. 0.97 g/cm2, p<0.05 and femur neck: 0.86 g/cm2 vs. 0.91, p<0.05), which was in agreement with the finding for T-scores of lumbar spine (-1.05 vs. -0.39 SD, p<0.05), total femur (-0.74 vs. -0.34 SD, p<0.01) and femur neck (-1.07 vs. -0.72 SD, p<0.01).Conclusion:These results suggest that patients with erosive hand OA are at higher risk for the development of general bone loss. Over two years patients with erosive disease had significant lower bone mineral density at all measured sites.References:[1]This work was supported by the project AZV no. 18-00542 and MHCR No. 023728.Acknowledgments:Project AZV no. 18-00542 and MHCR No. 023728Disclosure of Interests:Karel Pavelka Consultant of: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Ladislav Šenolt: None declared, Olga Sleglova: None declared, Jiří Baloun: None declared, Olga Růžičková: None declared

scholarly journals Influence of different playing surfaces on bone mass accretion in male adolescent football players: A one-season study

2019 ◽  
Vol 233 (4) ◽  
pp. 536-547
Author(s):  
Gabriel Lozano-Berges ◽  
Ángel Matute-Llorente ◽  
Alejandro Gómez-Bruton ◽  
Alex González-Agüero ◽  
Germán Vicente-Rodríguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mass ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Elastic Layer ◽  
Areal Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Football Players ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Artificial Turf ◽  
Mineral Density

There are different surfaces on which football is played, but their influence on bone mass accretion still remains unknown. The aims of this study were to compare bone mass accretion between football players and controls, and evaluate the influence of two different playing surfaces on bone accretion. A total of 27 male football players (13.2 ± 0.5 years) and 15 controls (12.6 ± 1.1 years) participated in this study. Football players were classified into two groups according to the surface they trained on: 14 on third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer and 13 on third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer. Bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone mineral apparent density variables were calculated. Bone geometry and strength of the non-dominant tibia were assessed with peripheral quantitative computed tomography. For both football players and controls, bone variables measured at subtotal body, lumbar spine, legs and tibia ( p < 0.05) significantly increased. Based on the time spent practicing football, the increase in areal bone mineral density for the legs ( p < 0.05) was higher in football players than controls. Moreover, lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density increased more in third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer players in comparison with third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer players ( p < 0.05). Playing football on third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer and third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer seems to positively affect bone mass during growth. After playing for one season on these playing surfaces, football practice on third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer with the lower shock absorption seems to have produced the highest increment in areal bone mineral density at lumbar spine. Thus, football practice on surfaces with lower shock absorption could provide an extra benefit on bone health.

Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in very-low-birth-weight infants: a longitudinal study

2000 ◽  
Vol 159 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Ichiba ◽  
H. Shintaku ◽  
M. Fujimaru ◽  
C. Hirai ◽  
Y. Okano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Birth Weight ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Low Birth Weight ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Very Low Birth Weight ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Low Birth Weight Infants

Menopause-related changes in bone mineral density in Japanese women: A longitudinal study on lumbar spine and proximal femur

1995 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Tsunenari ◽  
S. Yamada ◽  
M. Kawakatsu ◽  
H. Negishi ◽  
M. Tsutsumi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Proximal Femur ◽  
Japanese Women ◽  
Mineral Density

Fracture risk among men, in relation to osteopenia and osteoporosis defined by areal bone mineral density

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Pasco ◽  
Stephen Lane ◽  
Sharon Brennan ◽  
Elizabeth Timney ◽  
Gosia Bucki-Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Areal Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Mineral Density

scholarly journals POS0045 LEAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN BONE DENSITOMETRY IN PATIENTS WITH OBESITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 227.2-228
Author(s):  
D. Claire ◽  
M. Geoffroy ◽  
L. Kanagaratnam ◽  
C. Isabelle ◽  
A. Hittinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
General Population ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Bone Densitometry ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Least Significant Change ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Significant Change

Background:Dual energy X-ray absoprtiometry is the reference method to mesure bone mineral density (1). Loss of bone mineral density is significant if it exceeds the least significant change. The threshold value used in general population is 0,03 g/cm2 (2). Patients with obesity are known for having a higher bone mineral density due to metabolism and physiopathology characteristics (3,4).Objectives:The aim of our study was to determine the least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity.Methods:We conducted an interventionnal study in 120 patients with obesity who performed a bone densitometry. We measured twice the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck and the total hip in the same time (5,6). We determined the least significant change in bone densitometry from each pair of measurements, using the Bland and Altman method. We also determined the least significant change in bone densitometry according to each stage of obesity.Results:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is 0,046g/cm2 at the lumbar spine, 0.069 g/cm2 at the femoral neck and 0.06 g/cm2 at the total hip.Conclusion:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is higher than in general population. These results may improve DXA interpretation in this specific population, and may personnalize their medical care.References:[1]Lees B, Stevenson JC. An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int. mai 1992;2(3):146-52.[2]Briot K, Roux C, Thomas T, Blain H, Buchon D, Chapurlat R, et al. Actualisation 2018 des recommandations françaises du traitement de l’ostéoporose post-ménopausique. Rev Rhum. oct 2018;85(5):428-40.[3]Shapses SA, Pop LC, Wang Y. Obesity is a concern for bone health with aging. Nutr Res N Y N. mars 2017;39:1-13.[4]Savvidis C, Tournis S, Dede AD. Obesity and bone metabolism. Hormones. juin 2018;17(2):205-17.[5]Roux C, Garnero P, Thomas T, Sabatier J-P, Orcel P, Audran M, et al. Recommendations for monitoring antiresorptive therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. janv 2005;72(1):26-31.[6]Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C. Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res. août 1999;14(8):1449-56.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document