Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 153–158 | Cite as

Assessing bone mass in children and adolescents

Article

Abstract

Growing awareness that osteoporosis may have its antecedents in childhood has led to increasing interest in assessing bone mass in children and adolescents. Several noninvasive imaging techniques are currently available to measure properties of the growing skeleton, including bone mass, density, cross-sectional area, and microarchitecture. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique, but it has several major limitations associated with its dependence on two-dimensional projections. Quantitative CT and peripheral quantitative CT allow three-dimensional imaging but are more costly and have higher radiation exposure. Quantitative ultrasound is simple and inexpensive but can measure bone "quality" only at a single peripheral site. MRI techniques for measuring bone are still under development and not yet ready for clinical use. For all of these techniques, clinical interpretation of the bone measures obtained remains a significant challenge. Further research is needed to relate these measures to osteoporosis in the elderly and to shortterm and long-term fracture risk.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R: New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res 1992, 7:137–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katzman DK, Bachrach LK, Carter DR, Marcus R: Clinical and anthropometric correlates of bone mineral acquisition in healthy adolescent girls. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991, 73:1332–1339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duan Y, Parfitt A, Seeman E: Vertebral bone mass, size, and volumetric density in women with spinal fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1999, 14:1796–1802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroger H, Vainio P, Nieminen J, Kotaniemi A: Comparison of different models for interpreting bone mineral density measurements using DXA and MRI technology. Bone 1995, 17:157–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peel NF, Eastell R: Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:317–320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wren TA, Liu X, Pitukcheewanont P, Gilsanz V: Bone acquisition in healthy children and adolescents: comparisons of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography measures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005, 90:1925–1928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tothill P, Pye DW: Errors due to non-uniform distribution of fat in dual x-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. Br J Radiol 1992, 65:807–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Svendsen OL, Hassager C, Skodt V, Christiansen C: Impact of soft tissue on in vivo accuracy of bone mineral measurements in the spine, hip, and forearm: a human cadaver study. J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:868–873.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svendsen OL, Hendel HW, Gotfredsen A, et al.: Are soft tissue composition of bone and non-bone pixels in spinal bone mineral measurements by DXA similar? Impact of weight loss. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2002, 22:72–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, et al.: Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1503–1514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, et al.: Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1463–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkataraman PS, Ahluwalia BW: Total bone mineral content and body composition by x-ray densitometry in newborns. Pediatrics 1992, 90:767–770.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zanchetta JR, Plotkin H, Alvarez Filgueira ML: Bone mass in children: normative values for the 2–20-year-old population. Bone 1995, 16(4 suppl):393S-399S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koo WW, Massom LR, Walters J: Validation of accuracy and precision of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry for infants. J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:1111–1115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kroger H, Kotaniemi A, Kroger L, Alhava E: Development of bone mass and bone density of the spine and femoral neck—a prospective study of 65 children and adolescents. Bone Miner 1993, 23:171–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braillon PM, Salle BL, Brunet J, et al.: Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry measurement of bone mineral content in newborns: validation of the technique. Pediatr Res 1992, 32:77–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genant HK, Engelke K, Fuerst T, et al.: Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:707–730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dyson ED, Jackson CK, Whitehouse WJ: Scanning electron microscope studies of human trabecular bone. Nature 1970, 225:957–959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hangartner TN, Gilsanz V: Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:1518–1525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalender WA: Effective dose values in bone mineral measurements by photon absorptiometry and computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 1992, 2:82–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cann CE: Why, when and how to measure bone mass: a guide for the beginning user. In Expanding the Role of edical Physics in Nuclear Medicine. Edited by Frey GD,Yester MV. Washington, DC: American Physics Institute;1991:250–279.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Njeh CF, Richards A, Boivin CM, et al.: Factors influencing the speed of sound through the proximal phalanges. J Clin Densitom 1999, 2:241–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baroncelli GI, Federico G, Bertelloni S, et al.: Bone quality assessment by quantitative ultrasound of proximal phalanxes of the hand in healthy subjects aged 3–21 years. Pediatr Res 2001, 49:713–718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vignolo M, Brignone A, Mascagni A, et al.: Influence of age, sex, and growth variables on phalangeal quantitative ultrasound measures: a study in healthy children and adolescents. Calcif Tissue Int 2003, 72:681–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dib L, Arabi A, Maalouf J, et al.: Impact of anthropometric, lifestyle, and body composition variables on ultrasound measurements in school children. Bone 2005, 36:736–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fricke O, Tutlewski B, Schwahn B, Schoenau E: Speed of sound: relation to geometric characteristics of bone in children, adolescents, and adults. J Pediatr 2005, 146:764–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fogelman I, Blake GM: Different approaches to bone densitometry. J Nucl Med 2000, 41:2015–2025.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schonau E, Radermacher A, Wentzlik U, et al.: The determination of ultrasound velocity in the os calcis, thumb and patella during childhood. Eur J Pediatr 1994, 153:252–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jaworski M, Lebiedowski M, Lorenc RS, Trempe J: Ultrasound bone measurement in pediatric subjects. Calcif Tissue Int 1995, 56:368–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lequin MH, van der Sluis IM, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, et al.: A longitudinal study using tibial ultrasonometry as a bone assessment technique in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Pediatr Radiol 2003, 33:162–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mughal MZ, Langton CM, Utretch G, et al.: Comparison between broad-band ultrasound attenuation of the calcaneum and total body bone mineral density in children. Acta Paediatr 1996, 85:663–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tuzun S, Karacan I, Akarirmak U, et al.: Evaluation of bone with quantitative ultrasound in healthy Turkish children. Turk J Pediatr 2003, 45:240–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baroncelli GI, Federico G, Vignolo M, et al.: Cross-sectional reference data for phalangeal quantitative ultrasound from early childhood to young-adulthood according to gender, age, skeletal growth, and pubertal development. Bone 2006, 39:159–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Halaba ZP, Konstantynowicz J, Pluskiewicz W, et al.: Comparison of phalangeal ultrasound and dual energy xray absorptiometry in healthy male and female adolescents. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:1617–1622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lappe JM, Recker RR, Malleck MK, et al.: Patellar ultrasound transmission velocity in healthy children and adolescents. Bone 1995, 16(4 suppl):251S-256S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sundberg M, Gardsell P, Johnell O, et al.: Comparison of quantitative ultrasound measurements in calcaneus with DXA and SXA at other skeletal sites: a population-based study on 280 children aged 11–16 years. Osteoporos Int 1998, 8:410–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fielding KT, Nix DA, Bachrach LK: Comparison of calcaneus ultrasound and dual x-ray absorptiometry in children at risk of osteopenia. J Clin Densitom 2003, 6:7–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Link TM, Majumdar S, Grampp S, et al.: Imaging of trabecular bone structure in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 1999, 9:1781–1788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krug R, Banerjee S, Han ET, et al.: Feasibility of in vivo structural analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance images of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:1307–1314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lang T, Augat P, Majumdar S, et al.: Noninvasive assessment of bone density and structure using computed tomography and magnetic resonance [review]. Bone 1998, 22(5 suppl):149S-153S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ludescher B, Martirosian P, Lenk S, et al.: High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone in the wrist at 3 tesla: initial results. Acta Radiol 2005, 46:306–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gomberg BR, Wehrli FW, Vasilic B, et al.: Reproducibility and error sources of micro-MRI-based trabecular bone structural parameters of the distal radius and tibia. Bone 2004, 35:266–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Link TM, Majumdar S, Augat P, et al.: In vivo high resolution MRI of the calcaneus: differences in trabecular structure in osteoporosis patients. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1175–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wehrli FW, Hwang SN, Ma J, et al.: Cancellous bone volume and structure in the forearm: noninvasive assessment with MR microimaging and image processing. Radiology 1998, 206:347–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al.: Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 1993, 341:72–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM: Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review. JAMA 2002, 288:1889–1897.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC Jr: Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study. J Clin Invest 1988, 81:1804–1809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al.: Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2005, 20:1185–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H: Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996, 312:1254–1259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Davis JW, Vogel JM: A comparison of single and multi-site BMC measurements for assessment of spine fracture probability. J Nucl Med 1989, 30:1166–1171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wren TA, Liu X, Pitukcheewanont P, Gilsanz V: Bone densitometry in pediatric populations: discrepancies in the diagnosis of osteoporosis by DXA and CT. J Pediatr 2005, 146:776–779.This study highlights the challenges of interpreting bone measurements in children and adolescents. DXA and CT were performed in the same subjects, and many more were classified as having low bone density by DXA than by CT.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Loro ML, Sayre J, Roe TF, et al.: Early identification of children predisposed to low peak bone mass and osteoporosis later in life. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000, 85:3908–3918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skaggs DL, Loro ML, Pitukcheewanont P, et al.: Increased body weight and decreased radial cross-sectional dimensions in girls with forearm fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1337–1342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chan GM, Hess M, Hollis J, Book LS: Bone mineral status in childhood accidental fractures. Am J Dis Child 1984, 138:569–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cook SD, Harding AF, Morgan EL, et al.: Association of bone mineral density and pediatric fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 1987, 7:424–427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Goulding A, Cannan R, Williams SM, et al.: Bone mineral density in girls with forearm fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:143–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Goulding A, Jones IE, Taylor RW, et al.: Bone mineral density and body composition in boys with distal forearm fractures: a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry study. J Pediatr 2001, 139:509–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ma DQ, Jones G: Clinical risk factors but not bone density are associated with prevalent fractures in prepubertal children. J Paediatr Child Health 2002, 38:497–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ma D, Jones G: The association between bone mineral density, metacarpal morphometry, and upper limb fractures in children: a population-based case-control study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003, 88:1486–1491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Clark EM, Tobias JH, Ness AR: Association between bone density and fractures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis [review]. Pediatrics 2006, 117:e291-e297.This meta-analysis summarizes the literature relating bone density measures in children to fractures. It concludes that there is some evidence for an association between bone density and fractures in children, but no large prospective studies have been conducted.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyChildrens Hospital Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations