• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Photonic Therapeutics and Diagnostics II; Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging; vol.7, no.1 >Osteoporosis: Are we measuring what we intend to measure? In Search of the Ideal Bone Strength Study
【24h】

Osteoporosis: Are we measuring what we intend to measure? In Search of the Ideal Bone Strength Study

机译：骨质疏松症：我们正在测量我们打算测量的东西吗？寻找理想的骨强度研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In 1991 the World Health Organization (WHO) defined osteoporosis as a "loss of bone mass and micro architectural deterioration of the skeleton leading to increased risk of fracture." Since microarchitecture can not be measured directly, a panel of the WHO recommended that the diagnosis be made according to a quantifiable surrogate marker, calcium mineral, in bone. Subsequently in 1994, the definition focused on the actual bone "density," giving densitometric technology a central place in establishing the diagnosis of osteoporosis. But soon it became obvious that there was only limited correlation between bone mineral density (BMD) and actual occurrence of fractures and that decreases in bone mass account for only about 50% of the deterioration of bone strength with aging. In other words only about 60% of bone strength is related to BMD. Recent developments in bone research have shown that bone mineral density in itself is not sufficient to accurately predict fracture risk. Bone is composed of inorganic calcium apatite crystals that mineralize an organic type Ⅰ collagen matrix. The degree of mineralization, the properties of the collagen matrix, crystal size, trabecular orientation, special distribution of the different components and many more factors are all impacting bone strength. Human cadaver studies have confirmed the correlation between bone density and bone. strength. Changes in cancellous bone morphology appear to lead to a disproportionate decrease in bone strength. When postmenopausal women are stratified by age, obvious differences between BMD and actual fracture risk are observed. Felsenberg eloquently summarizes what he calls the "Bone Quality Framework." In great detail he talks about the geometry and micro- architecture of bone and how the different components are related to functional stability. Are our current testing modalities appropriately addressing these structural factors? Are we keeping in mind that in screening for osteoporosis the key variable is fragility, not bone density itself? All currently FDA approved and commercially available equipments for the evaluation of bone status claim that they - at least indirectly - assess the biological fracture risk. This review summarizes an extensive current literature research covering FDA approved as well as experimental devices for the evaluation of bone. The pros and cons of the different techniques are discussed in the context of diagnostic accuracies and practical implications.
机译：1991年，世界卫生组织（WHO）将骨质疏松症定义为“骨量减少和骨骼的微结构恶化导致骨折风险增加”。由于无法直接测量微结构，因此WHO专家组建议根据骨中可量化的替代标记物钙矿物质进行诊断。随后在1994年，该定义侧重于实际的骨骼“密度”，从而使光密度测定技术在确立骨质疏松症的诊断中处于中心地位。但是很快就变得很明显，骨矿物质密度（BMD）与骨折的实际发生之间仅有有限的相关性，而骨质的减少仅占衰老导致骨强度下降的约50％。换句话说，只有大约60％的骨强度与BMD有关。骨研究的最新进展表明，骨矿物质密度本身不足以准确预测骨折风险。骨由无机钙磷灰石晶体组成，可矿化有机Ⅰ型胶原基质。矿化程度，胶原蛋白基质的特性，晶体大小，小梁取向，不同成分的特殊分布以及更多因素都在影响骨强度。人类尸体研究已证实骨密度与骨骼之间的相关性。强度。松质骨形态的变化似乎导致骨骼强度的降低。当绝经后妇女按年龄分层时，BMD与实际骨折风险之间存在明显差异。 Felsenberg雄辩地总结了他所谓的“骨骼质量框架”。他非常详细地讨论了骨骼的几何结构和微结构，以及不同的组件如何与功能稳定性相关。我们当前的测试方式是否适当解决了这些结构性因素？我们是否要记住，筛查骨质疏松症的关键变量是脆性，而不是骨密度本身？目前，所有FDA批准的可用于评估骨状态的设备均可以购买，并声称它们至少间接地评估了生物性骨折的风险。这篇综述总结了当前广泛的文献研究，涉及FDA批准的以及用于评估骨质的实验装置。在诊断准确性和实际意义的背景下讨论了不同技术的利弊。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号