SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri / 2016 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Normal range of BMD in proximal tibia as a different skeletal site at women

Ersoy KEKİLLİ
Mustafa Arif ALUCLU
Fatih BATİ
Pages
201–208
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

New simulated T-scores for proximal subregions of the tibia were then calculated.RESULTS: T-scores for proximal subregions were not different from T-scores of total lumbar spine (p>0.05).CONCLUSION: It was concluded that proximal tibia is an ideal region for measurement of BMD in osteoporosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is progressive metabolic bone disease that decreases bone density and features deterioration of bone structure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:BMD value of subregions in the left proximal tibia was significantly correlated with BMD value of the total lumbar spine (r=0.111-0.766).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:New simulated T-scores for proximal subregions of the tibia were then calculated.RESULTS: T-scores for proximal subregions were not different from T-scores of total lumbar spine (p>0.05).CONCLUSION: It was concluded that proximal tibia is an ideal region for measurement of BMD in osteoporosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is progressive metabolic bone disease that decreases bone density and features deterioration of bone structure. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used and reliable method to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Aim of this study was to determine normal ranges of BMD in left proximal tibia.METHODS: Fifty-five females were included in this study. BMD was measured at the lumbar spine and the left proximal tibia using DXA. BMD value of subregions in the left proximal tibia was significantly correlated with BMD value of the total lumbar spine (r=0.111-0.766). New average BMD values of the left proximal tibia were calculated according to age using linear regression formula, leading to average BMD value for the total lumbar spine (L1-L4) in normal population. New simulated T-scores for proximal subregions of the tibia were then calculated.RESULTS: T-scores for proximal subregions were not different from T-scores of total lumbar spine (p>0.05).CONCLUSION: It was concluded that proximal tibia is an ideal region for measurement of BMD in osteoporosis.

🔖

Cite This Article

KEKİLLİ, E., ALUCLU, M. A., BATİ, F. (2022). Normal range of BMD in proximal tibia as a different skeletal site at women. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 201–208. https://ajindex.com/articles/551625

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Lundeen GA, Knecht SL, Vajda EG, Bloebaum RD, Hofmann AA. The contribution of cortical and cancellous bone to dual-en- ergy X-ray absorptiometry measurements in the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:192-8.
  2. Brown JP, Fortier M, Frame H, Lalonde A, Papaioannou A, Se- nikas V, et al. Canadian consensus conference on osteoporosis, J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006;28:95-112. Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 1997;7:108-16.
  3. Fink HA, Harrison SL, Taylor BC, Cummings SR, Schousboe JT, Kuskowski MA, et al. Differences in site-specific fracture risk among older women with discordant results for osteoporosis at hip and spine: study of osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Densitom 2008;11:250-9.
  4. Paker N, Erbil M, Otlu Z, Soy D, Uysal E. Bone mineral density in healthy Turkish women. J Miner Stoffwechs 2005;12:73-6.
  5. Garg MK, Kharb S. Dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry: Pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indi- an Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013;17:203-10.
  6. Lv H, Jiang F, Guan D, Lu C, Guo B, Chan C, et al. Metabolo- mics and Its Application in the Development of Discovering Bio- markers for Osteoporosis Research. Int J Mol Sci 2016;17:2018.
  7. Ediz L, Dülger AC, Toprak M, Ceylan MF, Kemik O. The preva- lence and risk factors of decreased bone mineral density in firstly diagnosed ulcerative colitis patients in the eastern region of Tur- key. Int J Clin Exp Med 2011;4:157-63.
  8. Cidem M, Bahadir C, Karakoc Y, Karacan I. Forearm bone min- eral density in healthy young adult mobile phone users. Med- Science 2012;1:35-40.
  9. Marini F, Cianferotti L, Brandi ML. Epigenetic mechanisms in bone biology and osteoporosis: Can they drive therapeutic choic- es? International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2016;17:1329. World Health Organization Study Group. Assessment of frac- ture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group, World Health Organ Tech Rep 1994;843:1-129. Keen RW. Osteoporosis: strategies for prevention and man- agement. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 2007;21:109-22.
  10. Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:1137-41.
  11. Erhan B, Gunduz B. The Effect of Fracture on Quality of Life in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women. Osteoporoz Dünyasından 2006;12:31-4.
  12. Erkin G, Akınbingöl M, Didere Gülşen E, Aybay C, Özel S. The features of the geriatric Patients who have bone mineral Dansi- tometric m