The use of ultrasonic densitometry in assessing bone mineral density and determining the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in older women in the family doctor practice

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4798.2021.238027

Keywords:

osteoporosis, osteopenia, ultrasonic densitometry, risk factors of osteoporosis, FRAX, Q-Fracture, family medicine

Abstract

Osteoporosis is the fourth most common disease after cardiovascular, cancer and endocrine diseases. With an increase in life expectancy, it becomes one of the main causes of deterioration in health and an increase in mortality.

The aim of the study. To identify women with low bone density using ultrasound densitometry and assess the risk of osteoporotic fractures.

Materials and methods. The study was based on a survey of 31 women in the Odessa region, the average age of the subjects was 57±9.1 years, the average body weight was 75.74±12.5 kg, height 162.8±0.1 cm, the average BMI was 28.57±4.5. All women were divided into groups by age with a ten-year interval and by densitometry indices.

Results. Decrease in bone density was found in 51.6 % of examined women. The lowest BMD was in the age group of 70–79 years, and the largest numbers of respondents with osteopenic changes were at the age of 50–59. A linear correlation was found between BMD and age at the level of significance p=0.007. The linear regression equation is: t=-0.03968 *age+1.268, (r=-0.473). In women with osteopenia, a significant increase in indicators was found for almost all algorithms for assessing the 10-year risk of fractures at p<0.05 (except for FRAX Hiр without BMD (p=0.087)) and a significant decrease in ultrasound densitometry indicators compared with women with normal BMD. Women with fractures had significantly higher scores according to the FRAX Total algorithms without BMD (p=0.002), FRAX Hiр without BMD (p=0.004) and Q-fracture Hiр (p=0.044).

Conclusions. Most women had osteopenic manifestations according to ultrasound densitometry. Age significantly correlates with BMD parameters. The numbers of women with changes in the structure of bone tissue increases with age, and, after 70 years, all women have osteopenic manifestations. The algorithms for assessing the 10-year risk of fractures FRAX and Q-Fracture reliably correlate with densitometry indicators. The combination of ultrasound densitometry with algorithms for assessing the risk of osteoporotic fractures significantly increases the diagnosis of osteoporosis

Author Biography

Yevheniia Lukianets, Bogomolets National Medical University

Postgraduate student

Department of General Practice (Family Medicine)

References

  1. Svedbom, A., Hernlund, E., Ivergård, M., Compston, J., Cooper, C. et. al. (2013). Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. Archives of Osteoporosis, 8 (1-2). doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0137-0
  2. Smaliuh, O. Z. (2013). Osteoporosis: what should a practitioner know (a review of literature). Bukovinian Medical Herald, 17 (2), 168–171.
  3. Gutzwiller, J.-P., Richterich, J.-P., Stanga, Z., Nydegger, U. E., Risch, L., Risch, M. (2018). Osteoporosis, diabetes, and hypertension are major risk factors for mortality in older adults: an intermediate report on a prospective survey of 1467 community-dwelling elderly healthy pensioners in Switzerland. BMC Geriatrics, 18 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0809-0
  4. Salminen, H., Piispanen, P., Toth-Pal, E. (2019). Primary care physicians’ views on osteoporosis management: a qualitative study. Archives of Osteoporosis, 14 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0599-9
  5. Curtis, E. M., Moon, R. J., Harvey, N. C., Cooper, C. (2017). The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide. Bone, 104, 29–38. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.01.024
  6. El-Hajj Fuleihan, G., Chakhtoura, M., Cauley, J. A., Chamoun, N. (2017). Worldwide Fracture Prediction. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 20 (3), 397–424. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.008
  7. Cawthon, P. M. (2011). Gender Differences in Osteoporosis and Fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics Related Research, 469 (7), 1900–1905. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1780-7
  8. Paul, T., Cherian, K., Kapoor, N. (2019). Utility of FRAX (fracture risk assessment tool) in primary care and family practice setting in India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 8 (6), 1824–1827. doi: http://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_385_19
  9. Bliuc, D., Nguyen, N. D., Milch, V. E., Nguyen, T. V., Eisman, J. A., Center, J. R. (2009). Mortality Risk Associated With Low-Trauma Osteoporotic Fracture and Subsequent Fracture in Men and Women. JAMA, 301 (5), 513–521. doi: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.50
  10. Kanis, J. ., Johnell, O., De Laet, C., Johansson, H., Oden, A., Delmas, P. et. al. (2004). A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone, 35 (2), 375–382. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.024
  11. Blackie, R. (2020). Diagnosis, assessment and management of osteoporosis. Prescriber, 31 (1), 14–19. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/psb.1815
  12. Nayak, S., Edwards, D. L., Saleh, A. A., Greenspan, S. L. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density. Osteoporosis International, 26 (5), 1543–1554. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3025-1
  13. Leslie, W. D., Seeman, E., Morin, S. N., Lix, L. M., Majumdar, S. R. (2018). The diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis impedes fracture prevention in women at high risk for fracture: A registry-based cohort study. Bone, 114, 298–303. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.07.004
  14. Kanis, J. A., Johansson, H., Harvey, N. C., McCloskey, E. V. (2018). A brief history of FRAX. Archives of Osteoporosis, 13 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0510-0
  15. Burden, A. M., Tanaka, Y., Xu, L., Ha, Y.-C., McCloskey, E., Cummings, S. R., Glüer, C. C. (2020). Osteoporosis case ascertainment strategies in European and Asian countries: a comparative review. Osteoporosis International, 32 (5), 817–829. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05756-8
  16. Medina-Gomez, C., Kemp, J. P., Trajanoska, K., Luan, J., Chesi, A., Ahluwalia, T. S. et. al. (2018). Life-Course Genome-wide Association Study Meta-analysis of Total Body BMD and Assessment of Age-Specific Effects. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 102 (1), 88–102. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.12.005
  17. Nayak, S., Edwards, D. L., Saleh, A. A., Greenspan, S. L. (2013). Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporosis International, 25 (1), 23–49. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2504-5
  18. World Health Organization (1994). Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Technical Support Series. Geneva: WHO, 843.
  19. Povorozniuk, V. V., Hryhorieva, N. V., Kanis, J. A., McCloskey, E. V., Johansson, H. (2016). Ukrainian FRAX version in the male osteoporosis management. News of Medicine and Pharmacy, 16 (596). Available at: http://www.mif-ua.com/archive/article/44043
  20. Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 146. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554920/
  21. Povorozniuk, V. V., Hryhorieva, N. V., Povorozniuk, V. (2013). Ultrazvukova densytometriia v otsintsi strukturno-funktsionalnoho stanu kistkovoi tkanyny. Bol. Sustavi. Pozvonochnyk, 4 (12). Available at: http://www.mif-ua.com/archive/article/37833

Downloads

Published

2021-07-30

How to Cite

Lukianets, Y. (2021). The use of ultrasonic densitometry in assessing bone mineral density and determining the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in older women in the family doctor practice. ScienceRise: Medical Science, (4(43), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4798.2021.238027

Issue

No. 4(43) (2021)

Section

Medical Science

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Yevheniia Lukianets

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.