Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 371–376 | Cite as

Influence of anthropometric parameters on ultrasound measurements of os calcis

  • D. Hans
  • A. M. Schott
  • M. E. Arlot
  • E. Sornay
  • P. D. Delmas
  • P. J. Meunier
Original Article

Abstract

Few data have been published concerning the influence of height, weight and body mass index (BMI) on broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound (SOS) and Lunar “stiffness” index, and always in small population samples. The first aim of the present cross-sectional study was to determine whether anthropometric factors have a significant influence on ultrasound measurements. The second objective was to establish whether these parameters have real effect on bone or whether their infuence is due only to measurement errors. We measured, in 271 healthy French women (mean age 77±11 years; range 31–97 years), the following parameters: age, height, weight, lean and fat body mass, heel width, foot length, knee height and height of the external malleolus (HEM). Simple linear regression analyses between ultrasound and anthropometric parameters were performed. Age, height and heel width were significant predictors of SOS; age, height, weight, foot length, heel width, HEM, fat mass and lean mass were significant predictors of BUA; age, height, weight, heel width, HEM, fat mass and lean mass were significant predictors of stiffness. In the multiple regression analysis, once the analysis had been adjusted for age, only heel width was a significant predictor for SOS (p=0.0007), weight for BUA (p=0.0001), and weight (p=0.0001) and heel width (p=0.004) for the stiffness index. Besides their statistical meaning, the regression coefficients have a more clinically relevant interpretation which is developed in the text. These results confirm the influence of anthropometric factors on the ultrasonic parameter values, because BUA and SOS were in part dependent on heel width and weight. The influence of the position of the transducer on the calcaneus should be taken into account to optimize the methods of measurement using ultrasound.

Keywords

Anthropometric parameters BUA SOS Ultrasound 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Langton CM, Evans GP. Dependence of ultrasonic velocity and attenuation on the material properties of cancellous bone [abstract]. Osteoporosis Int 1991;1:194.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glüer CC, Wu CY, Genant HK. Broadband ultrasound attenuation signals depend on trabecular orientation: an in vitro study. Osteoporosis Int 1993;3:185–91.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hans D, Arlot ME, Schott AM, Roux JP, Meunier PJ. Do ultrasound measurements on the os calcis reflect more the bone microarchitecture than the bone mass? A two-dimensional histo-morphometric study. Bone (In press).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hans D, Schott AM, Meunier PJ. Ultrasound assessment of bone: a review. Eur J Med 1993;2:157–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufman JJ, Einhorn TA. Perspective: ultrasound assessment of bone. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:517–25.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW. The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 1984;13:89–91.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazess RB, Hanson JA, Bonnick SL. Ultrasound measurement of the os calcis. Paper presented at the British Bone and Tooth Society meeting, 23–24 September 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nilsson B, Johnell O, Petersson C. In vivo bone mineral measurement. Acta Orthop Scand 1990;61:275–81.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazess RB. The noninvasive measurement of skeletal mass. In: Peck W, editor. Bone and mineral research annual 1. New York: Elsevier, 1983:223–79.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazess RB. Errors in measuring trabecular bone by computed tomography due to marrow and bone composition. Calcif Tissue Int 1983;35:148–52.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frost HM. Some effects of basic multicellular unit-based remodelling on photon absorptiometry of trabecular bone. Bone Miner 1989;7:47–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Riggs BL. Assessment of bone mineral: II. J Nucl Med 1984;25:1241–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen MS, Christiansen C, Naestoft J, McNair P, Transbol IB. Normalization of bone mineral content to height, weight, and lean body mass: implications for clinical use. Calcif Tissue Int 1981;33:5–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vico L, Prallet B, Chappard D, Pallot-Prades B, Rupier R, Alexandre C. Contributions of chronological age, age at menarche and menopause and of anthropometric parameters to axial and peripheral bone densities. Osteoporosis Int 1992;2:153–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rico H, Revilla M, Hernandez ER, Villa LF, Alvarez del Buergo M, Lopez A. Age- and weight-related changes in total body mineral in men. Miner Electrolyte Metab 1991;17:321–3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindsay R, Cosman F, Herrington BS, Himmelstein S. Bone mass and body composition in normal women. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:55–63.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCulloch RG, Bailey DA, Houston CS, Dodd BL. Effect of physical activity, dietary calcium intake and selected lifestyle factors on bone density in young women. Can Med Assoc J 1990;142:221–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damilakis JE, Dretakis E, Gourtsoyiannis NC. Ultrasound attenuation of the calcaneus in the female population: normative data. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;51:180–3.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mautalen C, Gonzales D, Circosta AM. Ultrasonic assessment of bone in normal and osteoporotic women. Paper presented at 4th International Symposium on Osteoporosis, Hong Kong, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu CY, Glüer CC, Genant HK. The impact of bone size on broadband ultrasound attenuation. Paper presented at 4th International Symposium on Osteoporosis, Hong Kong, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller CG, Herd RJM, Ramalingham T, Fogelman I, Blake GM. Ultrasonic velocity measurements through the calcaneus: which velocity should be measured? Osteoporosis Int 1993;3:31–5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schott AM, Hans D, Sornay-Rendu E, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ. Ultrasound measurements on os calcis: precision and age-related changes in a normal female population. Osteoporosis Int 1993;3:249–54.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szücs J, Jonson R, Granhed H, Hansson T. Accuracy, precision, and homogeneity effects in the determination of the bone mineral content and dual photon absorptiometry in the heel. Bone 1992;13:179–83.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonson R, Mansson LG, Rundgren A, Szücs J. Dual photon absorptiometry in determination of bone mineral content in the calcaneus and correction for fat. Phys Med Biol 1990;35:961–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shukla SS, Leu MY, Tighe T, Krutoff B, Craven JD, Greenfield MA. A study of the homogeneity of the trabecular bone mineral density in the calcaneus. Med Phys 1987;14:687–90.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blake GM. Comparative performance of commercial ultrasound scanners: ultrasonic assessment of bone: III. Stratford-upon-Avon, 1993. Procedures.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hans D, Schott AM, Chapuy MC, et al. Ultrasound measurements on the os calcis in a prospective multicenter study. Calcif Tissue Int 1994;55:94–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dagnelie P. Analyse statistique à plusieurs variable. Les Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, ASBL, 1975.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reid IR, Ames R, Evans MC, et al. Determinants of total body and regional bone mineral density in normal postmenopausal women: a key role for fat mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1992;75:45–51.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slosman DO, Casez JP, Pichard C, et al. Assessment of whole-body composition with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Radiology 1992;185:593–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Antich P, Pak CYC, Gonzales J, Anderson J, Sakhaee K, Rubin C. Measurement of bone strength in vivo by reflection ultrasound: effect of aging, osteoporotic development and treatment with slow-release sodium fluoride. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6 (Suppl):358.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roberts JD, Di Tomasso E, Weber CE. Photon scattering measurements of calcaneal bone density. Invest Radiol 1982;17:20–5.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glüer CC, Vahlensieck M, Faulkner KG, Engelke K, Black D, Genant HK. Site-matched calcaneal measurements of broadband ultrasound attenuation and single X-ray absorptiometry: do they measure different skeletal entities? J Bone Miner Res 1991;7:1071–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brandenburger G, Waud K, Baran D. Reproducibility of uncor-rected velocity of sound does not indicate true precision. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7(Suppl):368.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kotzki PO, Buick D, Hans D, et al. Influence of fat on ultasound measurements of the os calcis. Calcif Tissue Int 1994;54:91–5.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jhamaria NL, Lal KB, Udawat M, Banerji P, Kabra SG. The trabecular pattern of the calcaneum as an index of osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1983;65:195–8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schott AM, Weill-Engerer S, Hans D, Duboeuf F, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ, Ultrasound discriminates patients with hip fracture equally well as DXA and independently of BMD. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10,2:243–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hans
    • 1
  • A. M. Schott
    • 1
  • M. E. Arlot
    • 1
  • E. Sornay
    • 1
  • P. D. Delmas
    • 1
  • P. J. Meunier
    • 1
  1. 1.INSERM Unit 403, Epidemiology SectionPavilion F, Hôpital Edouard HerriotLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations