4.5 Article

Trabecular bone score as a skeletal fragility index in acromegaly patients

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 1123-1129

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3344-2

关键词

Acromegaly; Bone mineral density; Skeletal fragility; Trabecular bone score

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) was significantly decreased in active acromegaly patients. TBS may be useful to assess the skeletal fragility in acromegaly in which bone mineral density (BMD) is not sufficient to represent bone strength and explain the high incidence of fragility fractures in acromegaly patients. Introduction Although the data on BMD are controversial, patients with acromegaly have an increased risk of fragility fracture. We examined the lumbar spine TBS to explain the skeletal deterioration in acromegaly patients. Methods We included 14 men and 19 women acromegaly patients who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the time of diagnosis from 2000 to 2014 at Seoul National University Hospital. Ninety-nine age-, sex- and body mass index-matched controls were recruited. Biochemical parameters, lumbar spine TBS, and BMD at all sites were measured. Gonadal status was evaluated at diagnosis. Results Lumbar spine TBS was lower in acromegaly patients than in controls in both genders (1.345 +/- 0.121 vs. 1.427 +/- 0.087, P = 0.005 in men; 1.356 +/- 0.082 vs. 1.431 +/- 0.071, P = 0.001 in women). In contrast, BMD at all sites did not differ between the two groups. Hypogonadal acromegaly patients (men, n = 9; women, n = 12) had lower TBS values compared with controls both in men and women (all P < 0.05), although BMD at all sites were similar for the two groups. In eugonadal acromegaly patients, lumbar spine TBS was lower than in women controls only (P = 0.041). Conclusions Skeletal microarchitecture was deteriorated in acromegaly patients as assessed by TBS, which seems to be a consequence of growth hormone excess as well as hypogonadism, especially in women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据