» Articles » PMID: 8242465

Measurements of Postmenopausal Bone Loss with a New Contact Ultrasound System

Overview
Specialty Pathology
Date 1993 Sep 1
PMID 8242465
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Measurements of broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) and velocity of ultrasound through the heel (heel velocity, HV) were performed with a Contact Ultrasonic Bone Analyzer (CUBA-Research model) in 229 women. The subjects consisted of 16 healthy young volunteers (Group 1, mean age 26 years), 170 healthy pre- and postmenopausal women (Group 2, mean age 53 years), and 43 osteoporotic women with radiographically defined vertebral crush fracture (Group 3, mean age 66 years). Subjects in Group 1 had 10 repeated measurements in a study of short-term precision. Women in Groups 2 and 3 also had dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans to measure lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). The BUA and HV measurements for all 229 women showed a significant correlation (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). The precision study on the subjects in Group 1 gave a root mean square coefficient of variation of 6.3% for BUA and 1.04% for HV. Linear regression analysis gave the following relationship between BUA and age for the 170 normal women in Group 2: BUA = 83.6-0.86 (age 40) dB/MHz (r = -0.31, P < 0.001, SEE = 16.3 dB/MHz). The relationship between HV and age was as follows: HV = 1614-2:3 (age 40) m/s (r = -0.33, P < 0.001, SEE = 42 m/s). Multivariate regression analysis showed that in addition to age, years since the menopause was also a significant factor in determining both BUA and HV.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Citing Articles

The epidemiology of quantitative ultrasound: a review of the relationships with bone mass, osteoporosis and fracture risk.

Gregg E, Kriska A, Salamone L, Roberts M, Anderson S, Ferrell R Osteoporos Int. 1997; 7(2):89-99.

PMID: 9166387 DOI: 10.1007/BF01623682.


Ultrasonic measurement: an evaluation of three heel bone scanners compared with a bench-top system.

Strelitzki R, Clarke A, Truscott J, Evans J Osteoporos Int. 1996; 6(6):471-9.

PMID: 9116393 DOI: 10.1007/BF01629580.


The role of ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis: a review.

Njeh C, Boivin C, Langton C Osteoporos Int. 1997; 7(1):7-22.

PMID: 9102067 DOI: 10.1007/BF01623454.


Advances in the noninvasive assessment of bone density, quality, and structure.

Genant H, Lang T, Engelke K, Fuerst T, Gluer C, Majumdar S Calcif Tissue Int. 1996; 59 Suppl 1:S10-5.

PMID: 8974723 DOI: 10.1007/s002239900169.


Quantitative ultrasound of bone in institutionalized elderly women: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.

Krieg M, Thiebaud D, Burckhardt P Osteoporos Int. 1996; 6(3):189-95.

PMID: 8783292 DOI: 10.1007/BF01622734.


References
1.
Kalender W . Effective dose values in bone mineral measurements by photon absorptiometry and computed tomography. Osteoporos Int. 1992; 2(2):82-7. DOI: 10.1007/BF01623841. View

2.
Miller C, Herd R, Ramalingam T, Fogelman I, Blake G . Ultrasonic velocity measurements through the calcaneus: which velocity should be measured?. Osteoporos Int. 1993; 3(1):31-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF01623174. View

3.
Wilson C, Madsen M . Dichromatic absorptiometry of vertebral bone mineral content. Invest Radiol. 1977; 12(2):180-4. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-197703000-00014. View

4.
Heaney R, Avioli L, Chesnut 3rd C, Lappe J, Recker R, Brandenburger G . Osteoporotic bone fragility. Detection by ultrasound transmission velocity. JAMA. 1989; 261(20):2986-90. DOI: 10.1001/jama.261.20.2986. View

5.
Wasnich R, Ross P, Heilbrun L, Vogel J . Selection of the optimal skeletal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; (216):262-9. View