Welcome!
To use the personalized features of this site, please log in or register.
If you have forgotten your username or password, we can help.
My Menu
Saved Items

Original Article

Assessing forearm fracture risk in postmenopausal women

L. J. Melton III1, 3 Contact Information, D. Christen5, B. L. Riggs3, S. J. Achenbach2, R. Müller5, G. H. van Lenthe5, 6, S. Amin1, 4, E. J. Atkinson2 and S. Khosla3

(1)  Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
(2)  Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
(3)  Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
(4)  Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
(5)  Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
(6)  Division of Biomechanics and Engineering Design, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Received: 5 May 2009  Accepted: 6 August 2009  Published online: 28 August 2009

Abstract
Summary  A diverse array of bone density, structure, and strength parameters were significantly associated with distal forearm fractures in postmenopausal women, but most of them were also correlated with femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD), which provides an adequate measure of bone fragility at the wrist for routine clinical purposes.
Introduction  This study seeks to test the clinical utility of approaches for assessing forearm fracture risk.
Methods  Among 100 postmenopausal women with a distal forearm fracture (cases) and 105 with no osteoporotic fracture (controls), we measured aBMD and assessed radius volumetric bone mineral density, geometry, and microstructure; ultradistal radius failure load was evaluated in microfinite element (μFE) models.
Results  Fracture cases had inferior bone density, geometry, microstructure, and strength. The most significant determinant of fracture in five categories were bone density (femoral neck aBMD; odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD), 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4–2.8), geometry (cortical thickness; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2.1), microstructure (structure model index (SMI); OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4–0.7), and strength (µFE failure load; OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3–2.5); the factor-of-risk (applied load in a forward fall ÷ μFE failure load) was 15% worse in cases (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.6). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) ranged from 0.62 to 0.68. The predictors of forearm fracture risk that entered a multivariable model were femoral neck aBMD and SMI (combined AUC, 0.71).
Conclusions  Detailed bone structure and strength measurements provide insight into forearm fracture pathogenesis, but femoral neck aBMD performs adequately for routine clinical risk assessment.

Keywords  Bone density - Bone quality - Colles’ fracture - Epidemiology - Risk assessment

This work was supported by research grants R01-AR027065 and UL1-RR024150 (Center for Translational Science Activities) from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service. Supercomputer time was granted by the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre.

Contact Information L. J. Melton III
Email: melton.j@mayo.edu
Fulltext Preview (Small, Large)
Image of the first page of the fulltext

References secured to subscribers.


Export this article
Export this article as RIS | Text
 
Remote Address: 38.107.191.101 • Server: mpweb21
HTTP User Agent: CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html)