2016
DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.15.00795
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cortical Bone Thickness of the Distal Part of the Tibia Predicts Bone Mineral Density

Abstract: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Various studies in different bones where consideration could be given are listed above in the Introduction section and also in others including more recent studies that have summarized some of the relevant literature. 13,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] In conclusion, we found minimal inter-observer variations (mean error, 1.5 AE 1.4 mm) when the CFM was used to establish diaphyseal locations for making CI and MCCT measurements when compared to each of the Tingart and Mather methods (mean error range, 10.7 AE 5.9 to 13.3 AE 6.7 mm, respectively) (p < 0.001). When compared to the relatively minor variations in the CFM, the variations in the other methods are also clinically relevant because they can adversely affect the interpretation of the relationships of CI and MCCT with ultimate fracture load.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Various studies in different bones where consideration could be given are listed above in the Introduction section and also in others including more recent studies that have summarized some of the relevant literature. 13,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] In conclusion, we found minimal inter-observer variations (mean error, 1.5 AE 1.4 mm) when the CFM was used to establish diaphyseal locations for making CI and MCCT measurements when compared to each of the Tingart and Mather methods (mean error range, 10.7 AE 5.9 to 13.3 AE 6.7 mm, respectively) (p < 0.001). When compared to the relatively minor variations in the CFM, the variations in the other methods are also clinically relevant because they can adversely affect the interpretation of the relationships of CI and MCCT with ultimate fracture load.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The results of the present study suggest that there could be novel ways to more reliably measure CI and MCCT in other long bones that have relied on measurement locations based on endocortical parallelism, diaphyseal landmarks, or percentages of bone or diaphyseal length. Various studies in different bones where consideration could be given are listed above in the Introduction section and also in others including more recent studies that have summarized some of the relevant literature …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The thickness of the first layer representing the skin was assumed 1-3 mm, 51 and of the second layer was assumed 37-39 mm. 52 The physical source-detector distance was 1 cm (detector A) and 2 cm (detector B), respectively. The desired chromophore concentration changes in each layer are obtained as follows.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average scattering coefficients for skin and bone were 23.91 mm -1 49 and 24.44 mm -1 50 , respectively. The thickness of the first layer representing the skin was assumed 1 - 3 mm 51 , and of the second layer was assumed 37 - 39 mm 52 . The physical source-detector distance was 1 cm (detector A) and 2 cm (detector B), respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%