Absorptiometric assessment of muscle-bone relationships in humans: reference, validation, and application studies

Cointry, Gustavo Roberto; Capozza, Ricardo Francisco; Ferretti, Sebastian Eduardo; Meta, Margarita; Feldman, Sara; Capiglioni, Ricardo; Reina, Paola Soledad; Fracalossi, Néstor M.; Ulla, María Rosa; Cure-Cure, Carlos; Ferretti, J.L.

doi:10.1007/bf03026334

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Muscle size was consistently the dominant predictor of bone content and strength in the radius, whereas results in the tibia were less consistent, with muscle size and body mass varying in relative predictive value. Our results agree with previous evidence of the close relationship between MCSA and bone strength estimates in the arm 20,21 and leg, 18,[22][23][24] and with DXA-derived data suggesting that this relationship differs between the upper and lower limbs. 25,26 Our study adds to this literature by illustrating the site-specificity of the relationship between pQCT-derived bone measures of strength and local muscle area within the forearms and lower legs of the same individuals.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Relationships between muscle and bone have been investigated in the whole body, 19 arm, 20,21 and leg. 18,[22][23][24] In addition, limb-specific associations between muscle force and bone mineral content in pubertal female individuals 25 and between lean mass and bone mineral content in adults 26 have been examined using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, to our knowledge no study has yet investigated the independent contributions of body weight and local muscle size (crosssectional area, CSA) to the site-specific bone strength of the arm and leg within the same individuals.…”

Section: Ré Sumémentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Site-Specific Variance in Radius and Tibia Bone Strength as Determined by Muscle Size and Body Mass

Frank

Labas

Johnston

et al. 2012

Physiotherapy Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the predictive ability of muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) and body mass on bone mineral content, compressive bone strength index (BSI c ), and the polar stress-strain index (SSI p ) of the forearms and lower legs of middle-aged adults. Methods: A total of 53 healthy adults (37 male, 16 female; mean age 50.4; SD 2.1 y) were scanned with peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) to measure radius and tibia total and cortical bone mineral content, BSI c , SSI p , and forearm and lower-leg MCSA (BSI c : 4% distal; SSI p and MCSA at 65% and 66% radius and tibia shaft sites, respectively). Multiple regression models adjusted for sex and height were used to assess the relative variance in radius or tibia bone outcomes predicted by body mass and/or forearm or lower-leg MCSA. Results: Forearm MCSA independently predicted total bone-mineral content, BSI c , and SSI p in radius (r partial ¼ 0.59, 0.56, 0.42). Body mass was a negative predictor of radius BSI c (r partial ¼ À0.32) and did not predict other radius outcomes when both body mass and MCSA were forced in the models. In the lower leg shaft, MCSA, and body mass predicted bone content and strength similarly when independently added to the models with sex and height. Conclusions: Forearm MCSA was a dominant predictor of radius bone content and estimated strength. In the tibia, both body mass and lower-leg MCSA contributed to predicting bone content and estimated strength.Key Words: body weight; bone and bones; tomography scanners, X-ray computed; radius; muscle, skeletal; tibia. RÉ SUMÉObjectif : É tudier la capacité pré dictive de la mesure de l'aire de la fibre perpendiculaire à son sens longitudinal d'un muscle (mesure dite de la « MCSA ») et du poids corporel sur le contenu miné ral osseux, sur l'indice de force de compression de l'os (BSI c ) et sur l'indice tension-extension polaire (SSI p ) de l'avant-bras et de la portion infé rieure de la jambe chez les adultes d'â ge moyen. Mé thode : Au total, 53 adultes en bonne santé (37 hommes, 16 femmes; â ge moyen : 50,4 ans; é cart-type de 2,1 ans) ont subi une tomographie pé riphé rique quantitative par ordinateur (pQCT) en vue de mesurer le contenu total et cortical en miné raux du radius et du tibia, le BSI c , le SSI p et la capacité pré dictive de la section transversale de l'avant-bras et de la portion infé rieure de la jambe (BSI c : 4 % distal; SSI p et MCSA de 65 % et de 66 % pour le radius et le tibia, respectivement). De multiples modè les de ré gression adapté s en fonction du sexe et de la grandeur des participants ont é té utilisé s pour é valuer les variations relatives dans les ré sultats pour le radius ou le tibia projeté s à l'aide de la mesure du poids corporel et de la capacité pré dictive de la section transversale du muscle l'avant-bras ou de la portion infé rieure de la jambe. Ré sultats : La MSCA de l'avant-bras a permis de pré dire, à elle seule, le contenu miné ral osseux total, le BSI c et le SSI p du radius (r partiel ¼ 0,59, 0,56, 0,42). Le poids...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Ré Sumémentioning

confidence: 99%

Site-Specific Variance in Radius and Tibia Bone Strength as Determined by Muscle Size and Body Mass

Frank

Labas

Johnston

et al. 2012

Physiotherapy Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The biomechanical influences of muscles on bones as assessed by mass/mass relationships are blunted by natural morphogenetic associations [13][14][15][16][17][18], yet there is some evidence of a direct, mechanical interaction [19][20][21][22][23]. In fact, DXA studies of the whole-body and limbs (standard determinations of lumbar spine, femur, and radius are unsuitable for this purpose) have shown that mineral (BMC, y) and lean (related to muscle, x) masses are linearly related in both sexes at any age with similar slopes [24][25][26][27][28][29] (Fig.…”

Section: Imaging Muscle/bone Mass/mass (Anthropometric) Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging of the Muscle-Bone Relationship

Ireland

Ferretti

Rittweger

2014

Curr Osteoporos Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muscle can be assessed by imaging techniques according to its size (as thickness, area, volume, or alternatively, as a mass) and architecture (fiber length and pennation angle), with values used as an anthropometric measure or a surrogate for force production. Similarly, the size of the bone (as area or volume) can be imaged using MRI or pQCT, although typically bone mineral mass is reported. Bone imaging measures of mineral density, size, and geometry can also be combined to calculate bone's structural strength-measures being highly predictive of bone's failure load ex vivo. Imaging of muscle-bone relationships can, hence, be accomplished through a number of approaches by adoption and comparison of these different muscle and bone parameters, dependent on the research question under investigation. These approaches have revealed evidence of direct, mechanical muscle-bone interactions independent of allometric associations. They have led to important information on bone mechanoadaptation and the influence of muscular action on bone, in addition to influences of age, gender, exercise, and disuse on muscle-bone relationships. Such analyses have also produced promising diagnostic tools for clinical use, such as identification of primary, disuse-induced, and secondary osteoporosis and estimation of bone safety factors. Standardization of muscle-bone imaging methods is required to permit more reliable comparisons between studies and differing imaging modes, and in particular to aid adoption of these methods into widespread clinical practice.

show abstract

“…Hemos sido pioneros en demostrar que el uso de la fuerza muscular regional es el componente independiente más relevante del entorno mecánico para la determinación de la eficiencia direccional del diseño de los huesos que afecta (2,3,34,(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). La gráfica de la relación hueso/músculo puede estandarizarse para cuantificar el grado relativo de participación de factores mecánicos (tracción/ compresión/torsión/flexión de los huesos por la musculatura) y endocrino-metabólicos en cualquier osteopenia, con proyección terapéutica (111)(112)(113)(114)(115)(116)(117). Pueden correlacionarse indicadores de masas ósea y muscular empleando DXA (CMO y masa magra, correlativa de la muscular (118)), o índices de resistencia ósea y fuerza estimada (área de corte) muscular regional empleando QCT o, mejor, pQCT (101-105), y también datos directos, dinamométricos, de fuerza muscular.…”

unclassified

Masa, calidad, direccionalidad. ¿Cuál es la verdadera diferencia entre ‘osteopenias’ y ‘osteoporosis’?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La OMS distingue osteopenias (simples pérdidas de masa ósea mineralizada) de osteoporosis (pérdidas con tendencia a la fractura) según la simple magnitud densitométrica del déficit mineral. En realidad, la resistencia de un hueso no depende de su masa mineralizada, sino de la combinación de la rigidez (resistencia a deformarse) y la tenacidad (resistencia a resquebrajarse) de su estructura, determinadas, a su vez, por la ‘calidad mecánica’ (rigidez y tenacidad) del tejido mineralizado y la ‘calidad arquitectónica’ de su distribución en cortezas y tramas trabeculares (diseño óseo). La resistencia ósea responde a un mecanismo retroalimentado (‘mecanostato’), que adecua la distribución del tejido a su calidad, en función del sensado de las mini—deformaciones derivadas del uso, a cargo de los osteocitos. Ergo, la resistencia ósea no es una cuestión de masa, sino de ‘estructura’ y ‘organización’ servo—controladas. Entonces, la diferencia entre osteopenias y osteoporosis, independientemente de la masa densitométrica, debe interpretarse evaluando el impacto estructural de la variable interacción de dos determinantes independientes: 1. el entorno mecánico direccional del esqueleto (input del mecanostato), y 2. su entorno sistémico humoral, no direccional, cuyas alteraciones perturban el control biomecánico direccional ‘1’. El componente ‘1’ (desuso) debe tratarse fisiátricamente, mediante estímulos mecánicos específicamente direccionados. El componente ‘2’ (metabólico) requiere drogas específicas, cuyos efectos sistémicos sobre osteocitos, osteoblastos formadores y osteoclastos destructores de hueso están fuertemente condicionados a la normalidad de (1). El éxito terapéutico dependerá de en qué medida se reconsidere a las osteoporosis, no como enfermedades de la masa, sino del diseño óseo.

show abstract

Absorptiometric assessment of muscle-bone relationships in humans: reference, validation, and application studies

Cited by 7 publications

References 28 publications

Site-Specific Variance in Radius and Tibia Bone Strength as Determined by Muscle Size and Body Mass

Site-Specific Variance in Radius and Tibia Bone Strength as Determined by Muscle Size and Body Mass

Imaging of the Muscle-Bone Relationship

Masa, calidad, direccionalidad. ¿Cuál es la verdadera diferencia entre ‘osteopenias’ y ‘osteoporosis’?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About