Osteoporosis Echocardiography or Ultrasound
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Osteoporosis Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Medical Therapy |
|
Case Studies |
|
Osteoporosis Echocardiography or Ultrasound On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Osteoporosis Echocardiography or Ultrasound |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Osteoporosis Echocardiography or Ultrasound |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Eiman Ghaffarpasand, M.D. [2]
Overview
There are no echocardiography findings associated with osteoporosis. Quantitative ultrasound may be helpful in the diagnosis of osteoporosis.Ultrasound findings diagnostic of osteoporosis, include bone mass loss, mainly trabecular bone that is the major bone type affected in osteoporosis. Problems with DXA method have led to chose some methods with fewer side-effects and limitations, such as ultrasound (especially quantitative), which could diagnose osteoporosis with lower radiation, lower price, and also higher availability. Most common site of ultrasound application is peripheral parts, such as calcaneus and phalanges.
Echocardiography/Ultrasound
Echocardiography
There are no echocardiography findings associated with osteoporosis.
Ultrasound
- Quantitative ultrasound may be helpful in the diagnosis of osteoporosis.Ultrasound findings diagnostic of osteoporosis include bone mass loss (mainly trabecular bone that is the major bone type involved in osteoporosis).
- Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) and also osteoporosis, the limitations in its use may decrease the application and increase the need to find another modality. The limitations of DXA include ionizing radiation exposure, difficult portability due to large size, and high cost. These problems have led to chose some methods with fewer harmful effects and limitations, such as ultrasound (especially quantitative), which could diagnose osteoporosis with lower radiation, lower price, and also higher availability.[1]
- The preferred site for the application of ultrasound is calcaneus because of easy accessibility, suitable shape with parallel dimensions, and also containing about 90% of trabecular bones; with metabolic activity as much as vertebrae. It would be one of the best bone turnover identifiers in the skeleton.[2]
- The ultrasound is used especially for quantitative measures, such as structural features and elastic properties which can not be surveyed through densitometry; particularly in postmenopausal women.[3]
- Studies have revealed that ultrasound could provide really good properties, such as mineralized matrix distribution in bone and the bone resistance for heavy weights based on trabecular bones' characteristics (connectivity or thickness) and trabecular bones orientation, respectively.[4]
- On the other hand, it has been found that calcaneus ultrasound can predict any fracture in calcaneus, phalanx, radius, and tibia.[5]
- Another site with a high percentage of cancellous bone is phalanx. When bone mass loss happened, the central cavities enlarged and cortical bones declined. Results of the recent study have shown that phalanx ultrasound is a sensitive test for aging and also osteoporosis.[6] The sensitivity of ultrasound in diagnosing osteoporosis was very good.[7]
- There is more compatibility to use quantitative ultrasound in central sites of the body, which are main sites of the osteoporosis.
New methods
- Barkmann has invented the first quantitative ultrasound device specific for femoral neck BMD measurement (i.e., Femur Ultrasound Scanner, FemUS). The device consists of two ultrasound transducers which are submerged in water, synchronically send and receive ultrasonic waves; monitoring the BMD measure as precise as DXA method. The main limitation of the device was a probable sub-optimal function of transducers in various temperatures of containing water.[8]
- Recently, in Italy ultrasound has been used more in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. In this method, primarily lumbar spine and femoral neck ultrasound scan were done; BMD, T-score, and Z-score concluded using an automated algorithm with the application of both the echographic images and also the "raw" ultrasound signals. Then the concluded measures were compared to the DXA findings, showed the correspondence of 86.1% in the spine and 81% in the femur.[1]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Pisani P, Renna MD, Conversano F, Casciaro E, Muratore M, Quarta E; et al. (2013). "Screening and early diagnosis of osteoporosis through X-ray and ultrasound based techniques". World J Radiol. 5 (11): 398–410. doi:10.4329/wjr.v5.i11.398. PMC 3856332. PMID 24349644.
- ↑ Khaw KT, Reeve J, Luben R, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N, Oakes S, Day N (2004). "Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study". Lancet. 363 (9404): 197–202. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15325-1. PMID 14738792.
- ↑ Hans D, Njeh CF, Genant HK, Meunier PJ (1998). "Quantitative ultrasound in bone status assessment". Rev Rhum Engl Ed. 65 (7–9): 489–98. PMID 9785396.
- ↑ Barkmann R, Lüsse S, Stampa B, Sakata S, Heller M, Glüer CC (2000). "Assessment of the geometry of human finger phalanges using quantitative ultrasound in vivo". Osteoporos Int. 11 (9): 745–55. doi:10.1007/s001980070053. PMID 11148802.
- ↑ Khaw KT, Reeve J, Luben R, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N, Oakes S, Day N (2004). "Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study". Lancet. 363 (9404): 197–202. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15325-1. PMID 14738792.
- ↑ Guglielmi G, Njeh CF, de Terlizzi F, De Serio DA, Scillitani A, Cammisa M, Fan B, Lu Y, Genant HK (2003). "Palangeal quantitative ultrasound, phalangeal morphometric variables, and vertebral fracture discrimination". Calcif. Tissue Int. 72 (4): 469–77. doi:10.1007/s00223-001-1092-0. PMID 12574870.
- ↑ Wüster C, Albanese C, De Aloysio D, Duboeuf F, Gambacciani M, Gonnelli S, Glüer CC, Hans D, Joly J, Reginster JY, De Terlizzi F, Cadossi R (2000). "Phalangeal osteosonogrammetry study: age-related changes, diagnostic sensitivity, and discrimination power. The Phalangeal Osteosonogrammetry Study Group". J. Bone Miner. Res. 15 (8): 1603–14. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.8.1603. PMID 10934660.
- ↑ Barkmann R, Dencks S, Laugier P, Padilla F, Brixen K, Ryg J, Seekamp A, Mahlke L, Bremer A, Heller M, Glüer CC (2010). "Femur ultrasound (FemUS)--first clinical results on hip fracture discrimination and estimation of femoral BMD". Osteoporos Int. 21 (6): 969–76. doi:10.1007/s00198-009-1037-4. PMID 19693640.