Multi-site bone ultrasound measurements in elderly women with and without previous hip fractures

SummaryAbout 75% of patients suffering from osteoporosis are not diagnosed. This study describes a multi-site bone ultrasound method for osteoporosis diagnostics. In comparison with axial dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the ultrasound method showed good diagnostic performance and could discriminate fracture subjects among elderly females.IntroductionAxial DXA, the gold standard diagnostic method for osteoporosis, predicts fractures only moderately. At present, no reliable diagnostic methods are available at the primary health care level. Here, a multi-site ultrasound method is proposed for osteoporosis diagnostics.MethodsThirty elderly women were examined using the ultrasound backscatter measurements in proximal femur, proximal radius, proximal and distal tibia in vivo. First, we predicted the areal bone mineral density (BMD) at femoral neck by ultrasound measurements in tibia combined with specific subject characteristics (density index, DI) and, second, we tested the ability of ultrasound backscatter measurements at proximal femur to discriminate between individuals with previously fractured hips from those without fractures. Areal BMD was determined by axial DXA.ResultsCombined ultrasound parameters, cortical thickness at distal and proximal tibia, with age and weight of the subject, provided a significant estimate of BMDneck (r = 0.86, p < 0.001, n = 30). When inserted into FRAX (World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool), the DI indicated the same treatment proposal as the BMDneck with 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The receiver operating characteristic analyses, with a combination of ultrasound parameters and patient characteristics, discriminated fracture subjects from the controls similarly as the model combining BMDneck and patient characteristics.ConclusionsFor the first time, ultrasound backscatter measurements of proximal femur were conducted in vivo. The results indicate that ultrasound parameters, combined with patient characteristics, may provide a means for osteoporosis diagnostics.

[1]  D. Keedy,et al.  Ultrasonic characterization of human cancellous bone in vitro using three different apparent backscatter parameters in the frequency range 0.6-15.0 mhz , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[2]  Juha Töyräs,et al.  Ultrasound backscatter imaging provides frequency-dependent information on structure, composition and mechanical properties of human trabecular bone. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  O. Johnell,et al.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures , 1996 .

[4]  J. Eisman,et al.  Osteoporosis: underrated, underdiagnosed and undertreated , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[5]  R Stern,et al.  Measurement of the velocity of ultrasound in human cortical bone in vivo. Estimation of its potential value in the diagnosis of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease. , 1981, Radiology.

[6]  S. Singh.  Ultrasonic non-destructive measurements of cortical bone thickness in human cadaver femur. , 1989, Ultrasonics.

[7]  D. Ng,et al.  Bone mineral density--correlation between quantitative ultrasound characteristics and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. , 1998, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[8]  B. Garra,et al.  Assessment of bone density using ultrasonic backscatter. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[10]  W. Skalli,et al.  Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: relationships linking geometric and densitometric variables to bone strength. Role for compact bone , 2006, Osteoporosis International.

[11]  B. Hoffmeister.  Frequency dependence of apparent ultrasonic backscatter from human cancellous bone , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Effects of non-optimal focusing on dual-frequency ultrasound measurements of bone , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[13]  S. Cummings,et al.  BMD at Multiple Sites and Risk of Fracture of Multiple Types: Long‐Term Results From the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[14]  F. Padilla,et al.  Femur ultrasound (FemUS)—first clinical results on hip fracture discrimination and estimation of femoral BMD , 2010, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  R Porcher,et al.  Ultrasonic Backscatter and Transmission Parameters at the Os Calcis in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis , 2001, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[16]  Martin Heller,et al.  In vivo measurements of ultrasound transmission through the human proximal femur. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[17]  W. Evans,et al.  Bone assessment in elderly women: what does a low bone ultrasound result tell us about bone mineral density? , 1999, Archives of gerontology and geriatrics.

[18]  K. Wear,et al.  Relationships among calcaneal backscatter, attenuation, sound speed, hip bone mineral density, and age in normal adult women. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Effect of bone marrow on acoustic properties of trabecular bone--3D finite difference modeling study. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[20]  Juha Töyräs,et al.  Influence of overlying soft tissues on trabecular bone acoustic measurement at various ultrasound frequencies. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[21]  E. Chérin,et al.  Evaluation of acoustical parameter sensitivity to age-related and osteoarthritic changes in articular cartilage using 50-MHz ultrasound. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[22]  J. Thorpe,et al.  A list of device-specific thresholds for the clinical interpretation of peripheral x-ray absorptiometry examinations , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[23]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Dual-frequency ultrasound--new pulse-echo technique for bone densitometry. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[25]  R. Eastell,et al.  Device-specific thresholds to diagnose osteoporosis at the proximal femur: an approach to interpreting peripheral bone measurements in clinical practice , 2006, Osteoporosis International.

[26]  J. Timonen,et al.  Low-frequency axial ultrasound velocity correlates with bone mineral density and cortical thickness in the radius and tibia in pre- and postmenopausal women , 2011, Osteoporosis International.

[27]  A. Stewart,et al.  Long‐Term Fracture Prediction by DXA and QUS: A 10‐Year Prospective Study , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[28]  R. Luben,et al.  Is QUS or DXA Better for Predicting the 10‐Year Absolute Risk of Fracture? , 2009, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[29]  H. Kroger,et al.  Ultrasonic assessment of cortical bone thickness in vitro and in vivo , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

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

[31]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Effects of ultrasound beam angle and surface roughness on the quantitative ultrasound parameters of articular cartilage. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[32]  J. Rho,et al.  Low-megahertz ultrasonic properties of bovine cancellous bone. , 2000, Bone.

[33]  S. Kaste,et al.  Ultrasonic characterization of cancellous bone using apparent integrated backscatter , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[34]  J Töyräs,et al.  Bone mineral density, ultrasound velocity, and broadband attenuation predict mechanical properties of trabecular bone differently. , 2002, Bone.

[35]  I. Kiviranta,et al.  Prediction of density and mechanical properties of human trabecular bone in vitro by using ultrasound transmission and backscattering measurements at 0.2–6.7 MHz frequency range , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  H. Sievänen,et al.  Inaccuracies Inherent in Dual‐Energy X‐Ray Absorptiometry In Vivo Bone Mineral Density Can Seriously Mislead Diagnostic/Prognostic Interpretations of Patient‐Specific Bone Fragility , 2001, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[37]  J Töyräs,et al.  Spatial variation of acoustic properties is related with mechanical properties of trabecular bone , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  M. Bouxsein,et al.  Digital X-ray Radiogrammetry Predicts Hip, Wrist and Vertebral Fracture Risk in Elderly Women: A Prospective Analysis from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures , 2002, Osteoporosis International.

[39]  H H Bolotin,et al.  DXA in vivo BMD methodology: an erroneous and misleading research and clinical gauge of bone mineral status, bone fragility, and bone remodelling. , 2007, Bone.