Ultrasonic bone assessment: "the time has come".

Bone is unique in its ability to maintain its strength in the presence of constant turnover. It has been established that there is gradual and relatively complete removal and replacement with new bone several times in a lifetime. The reparative pattern is constantly changing in order to maintain strength and is influenced by changes in general health, the presence of disease, and the degree of physical activity. To date, no method has been developed to measure the nature of lifetime changes in patterns during childhood and throughout older age [1]. Often the first indication that a problem exists is the occurrence of a fragility fracture, which is often associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Fracture risk is dependent on the strength of bone as well as other factors including tendency to fall. This latter aspect may be related to poor balance and eyesight, or to environmental obstacles like stray wires, defective pavements, and edges on carpeting [2]. Inherent strength of bone depends upon a host of multi-factorial components. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which measures the mass of the mineralized matrix at a given site (e.g., hip, spine, forearm) is currently the accepted indicator used to assess bone strength. It has been shown that bone mass has about the same predictive value for fracture as blood pressure has for stroke [3]. Stages of bone turnover have been studied by analysis of biochemical markers as bone is removed and reformed [4]. But there is as yet no reliable clinical method to assess the status of the internal trabecular structure of bone which normally contributes significantly to strength. Notwithstanding the fact that X-ray densitometry is reasonably effective in bone mass assessment, osteoporosis remains one of the most prevalent undiagnosed and under-diagnosed diseases in the world today [5]. Among the reasons for this is that densitometry (i.e., DXA) is not a standard tool in a primary care physician's office. It does not lend itself to routine screening because of expense, inconvenience, and reticence concerning X-ray exposure, particularly in young adults and children. It is estimated that approximately 20% of women with osteoporosis have unrecognized or untreated conditions that are capable of causing absorption of bone (“secondary osteoporosis”) [6]. These may include thyroid, parathyroid, gastrointestinal disease, may be drug related or associated with a whole host of other possibilities [6]. Similarly for example, in adolescents and children, bone loss may be associated with metabolic conditions including hypogonadism, malnutrition, bulimia, and medication [7]. The ability to screen the quality of bone at any age would be expected to serve as preventive medicine by uncovering unrecognized causes and permit treatment of these conditions as well as to institute early appropriate therapy for osteoporosis.

[1]  C. Langton,et al.  The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. , 1984, Engineering in medicine.

[2]  C. M. Langton,et al.  The role of ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis: A review , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[3]  S A Goldstein,et al.  Biomechanics of Fracture: Is Bone Mineral Density Sufficient to Assess Risk? , 2000, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[4]  B Bianco,et al.  Computational methods for ultrasonic bone assessment. , 1999, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[5]  F. Padilla,et al.  Optimal Prediction of Bone Mineral Density with Ultrasonic Measurements in Excised Human Femur , 2005, Calcified Tissue International.

[6]  G. Breart,et al.  Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study , 1996, The Lancet.

[7]  O. Johnell,et al.  The perspective of the International Osteoporosis Foundation on the official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[8]  Alexander Sutin,et al.  Nonlinear Resonant Ultrasound Spectroscopy (NRUS) Applied to Damage Assessment in Bone , 2006 .

[9]  S C Cowin,et al.  Dynamic relationships of trabecular bone density, architecture, and strength in a computational model of osteopenia. , 1996, Bone.

[10]  W. Abendschein,et al.  Ultrasonics and selected physical properties of bone. , 1970, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  M. Kleerekoper,et al.  Relationships between surface, volume, and thickness of iliac trabecular bone in aging and in osteoporosis. Implications for the microanatomic and cellular mechanisms of bone loss. , 1983, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[12]  R. Eastell,et al.  Relationship of Early Changes in Bone Resorption to the Reduction in Fracture Risk With Risedronate , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[13]  E. Barrett-Connor,et al.  Prediction of Fracture Risk in Postmenopausal White Women With Peripheral Bone Densitometry: Evidence From the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment , 2002, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[14]  C. Glüer,et al.  Quantitative Ultrasound Techniques for the Assessment of Osteoporosis: Expert Agreement on Current Status , 1997, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[15]  Susan R. Johnson,et al.  Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. , 2001, JAMA.

[16]  M. Jergas,et al.  Accurate assessment of precision errors: How to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[17]  B. L. Riggs,et al.  Bone Turnover Matters: The Raloxifene Treatment Paradox of Dramatic Decreases in Vertebral Fractures Without Commensurate Increases in Bone Density , 2002, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[18]  M. Elmantaser,et al.  Secondary osteoporosis. , 2009, Endocrine development.

[19]  S. Lang,et al.  Elastic Coefficients of Animal Bone , 1969, Science.

[20]  S. Papapoulos,et al.  A New Approach to the Development of Assessment Guidelines for Osteoporosis , 2002, Osteoporosis International.

[21]  G. Brandenburger Clinical determination of bone quality: Is ultrasound an answer? , 2005, Calcified Tissue International.

[22]  Alexander Sutin,et al.  Nonlinear resonant ultrasound spectroscopy (NRUS) applied to damage assessment in bone. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Jonathan J. Kaufman,et al.  New ultrasound system for bone assessment , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[24]  G. Blake,et al.  Changes in QUS and BMD Measurements with Antiresorptive Therapy: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study , 2001, Calcified Tissue International.

[25]  J. Kanis,et al.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk , 2002, The Lancet.

[26]  G. Breart,et al.  Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study , 1996, The Lancet.

[27]  O. Johnell,et al.  Ten-year probabilities of clinical vertebral fractures according to phalangeal quantitative ultrasonography , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[28]  H. K. Genant,et al.  Broadband ultrasound attenuation signals depend on trabecular orientation: An in vitro study , 1993, Osteoporosis International.

[29]  R. Recker,et al.  The elusive concept of bone quality , 2004, Current osteoporosis reports.

[30]  J. Barger,et al.  Acoustical properties of the human skull. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Robert Luben,et al.  Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study , 2004, The Lancet.

[32]  Thomas A. Einhorn,et al.  Perspectives: Ultrasound assessment of bone , 1993 .

[33]  A. Silman,et al.  Predictive Value of BMD for Hip and Other Fractures , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[34]  Fran Harris,et al.  Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[35]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. , 2000, NIH consensus statement.

[36]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Calcaneal ultrasound predicts early postmenopausal fractures as well as axial BMD. A prospective study of 422 women , 2004, Osteoporosis International.

[37]  L. Bachrach,et al.  Osteoporosis and measurement of bone mass in children and adolescents. , 2005, Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America.

[38]  D. Burr,et al.  Bone Microdamage and Skeletal Fragility in Osteoporotic and Stress Fractures , 1997, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[39]  P. Nicholson,et al.  Quantitative Ultrasound Does Not Reflect Mechanically Induced Damage in Human Cancellous Bone , 2000, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[40]  J. Cauley,et al.  Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women. A prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. , 1997, Archives of Internal Medicine.

[41]  J. Katz,et al.  Ultrasonic wave propagation in human cortical bone-I. Theoretical considerations for hexagonal symmetry. , 1976, Journal of biomechanics.

[42]  Frequency Dependence of Ultrasonic Characteristics of Cancellous Bone , 1982 .

[43]  M. Maricic,et al.  Clinical use of serum and urine bone markers in the management of osteoporosis , 2005, Current medical research and opinion.

[44]  T A Einhorn,et al.  Ultrasound assessment of bone. , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.