Journal Information
Vol. 5. Issue 2.
Pages 63-65 (March - April 2009)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 5. Issue 2.
Pages 63-65 (March - April 2009)
Original article
Full text access
Differences in the frequency of osteoporosis according to the skeletal site evaluated. Analysis in 987 Spanish postmenopausal women referred to a bone densitometry unit
Diferencias en la frecuencia de osteoporosis según la región esquelética evaluada. Análisis de 987 mujeres posmenopáusicas remitidas a una unidad de densitometría
Visits
4507
Dolors Martínez-Aguilà, Carmen Gómez-Vaquero
, Javier Narváez, Montserrat Romera, Antoni Rozadilla, Joan M. Nolla
Department of Rheumatology, IDIBELL-Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Objective

To analyze the differences in the frequency of osteoporosis according to the skeletal site evaluated in a group of Spanish postmenopausal women.

Methods

We reviewed the data of 987 postmenopausal women (mean age, 53.8 [5.5 years]). BMD status was evaluated by DXA. We used the WHO thresholds to classify the patients. T-score was obtained from the single evaluation of each lumbar vertebra (L2, L3, and L4), the mean value of lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck and total hip.

Results

In 144 (14.7%) women, discrepancies were observed when we considered the single vertebral analysis versus the L2-L4 analysis; 62 (6%) women who presented osteoporosis in at least 1 vertebra would have been due to the osteopenia category when L2-L4 value was selected. In 271 (27.8%) women, discrepancies were observed when we considered the total hip analysis versus the femoral neck analysis. The frequency of osteoporosis ranged from 3% when only the analysis of the total hip was considered to 16% when the results of L2-L4 and proximal femur (total hip or femoral neck) measurements were selected.

Conclusions

Frequency of osteoporosis varies notably according to the skeletal zone considered.

Keywords:
Osteoporosis
Bone mineral density
Densitometry
Postmenopausal women
Diagnosis
Resumen
Objetivo

Analizar, en un grupo de mujeres posmenopáusicas, las diferencias en la frecuencia de osteoporosis según la localización anatómica utilizada para realizar el diagnóstico.

Métodos

Se recopilaron las características demográficas y los valores de la densidad mineral ósea (DMO) de 987 mujeres posmenopáusicas (media de edad, 53,8±5,5 años). La DMO se evaluó mediante absorciometría fotónica dual de fuente de rayos X (DXA). Se utilizaron las categorías de la OMS para clasificar a las pacientes. Se calcularon los T-score de cada vértebra lumbar de forma individualizada (L2, L3 y L4), del valor medio del análisis de la columna lumbar (L2-L4), del cuello femoral y de la cadera total.

Resultados

En 144 (14,7%) mujeres, se observaron discrepancias entre el análisis individualizado de cada vértebra lumbar y el análisis de L2-L4; 62 (6%) mujeres que presentaban osteoporosis en al menos una vértebra se adscribían a la categoría osteopenia al considerar el valor medio del análisis de L2-L4. En 271 (27,8%) mujeres, se observaron discrepancias entre el análisis de la cadera total y el cuello femoral. La frecuencia de osteoporosis osciló entre el 3% cuando se consideró sólo los resultados de la cadera total y el 16% cuando se tuvo en cuenta los valores del análisis de L2-L4 y del tercio proximal del fémur (cadera total o cuello femoral).

Conclusiones

La frecuencia de osteoporosis varía notablemente según la región esquelética considerada.

Palabras clave:
Osteoporosis
Densidad mineral ósea
Densitometría
Mujeres posmenopáusicas
Diagnóstico
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
A.W. Friedman.
Important determinants of bone strength: beyond bone mineral density.
J Clin Rheumatol., 12 (2006), pp. 70-77
[2.]
World Health Organization. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO technical report series 843. Geneva: WHO; 1994.
[3.]
J.A. Kanis, D. Black, C. Cooper, P. Dargent, B. Dawson-Hughes, C. de Laet, et al.
A new approach to the development of assessment guidelines for osteoporosis.
Osteoporos Int, 11 (2002), pp. 192-202
[4.]
J.A. Kanis, C.C. Glüer.
for the Committee of Scientific Advisors. Internacional Osteoporosis foundation. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry.
Osteoporos Int, 11 (2000), pp. 192-202
[5.]
E.S. Leib, N. Binkley, J.P. Bilezikian, D.L. Kendler, E.M. Lewiecki, S.M. Petak.
Position Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Vancouver, BC.
July 15-17, 2005. J Rheumatol, 33 (2006), pp. 2319-2321
[6.]
International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Official positions [Epub publication]. Available from: http://www.iscd.org/Visitors/positions/OfficialPositionsText.cfm
[7.]
M. Díaz Curiel, J.L. Carrasco de la Peña, J. Honorato Pérez, R. Pérez Cano, A. Rapado, I. Ruiz Martínez, on behalf of the Multicentre Research Project on Osteoporosis.
Study of bone mineral density in lumbar spine and femoral neck in a Spanish population.
Osteoporos Int, 7 (1997), pp. 59-64
[8.]
J.A. Kanis, E. McCloskey, H. Johansson, A. Oden, L.J. Melton III, N. Khaltaev.
A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis.
[9.]
A. Moayyeri, A. Soltani, H. Bahrami, M. Sadatsafavi, M. Jalili, B. Larijani.
Preferred skeletal site for osteoporosis screening in high-risk populations.
Public Health, 120 (2006), pp. 865-871
Copyright © 2009. Sociedad Española de Reumatología and Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología
Idiomas
Reumatología Clínica (English Edition)
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?