Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians

Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Bone (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331
Hauptverfasser: Sherk, Vanessa D, Bemben, Debra A, Bemben, Michael G, Anderson, Mark A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1331
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1324
container_title Bone (New York, N.Y.)
container_volume 50
creator Sherk, Vanessa D
Bemben, Debra A
Bemben, Michael G
Anderson, Mark A
description Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p < 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men > women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p < 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p < 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p < 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4082662</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S8756328212007235</els_id><sourcerecordid>1013920280</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCH-CAckHikjD-diS00qqCBWklDsDZcpxJ65LaxU5W9N-TqGX5OCBOluznnXnH7xTFcwI1ASJf7-o2BqwpEFoDqwHEg2JFtGIVVZI9LFZaCVkxqulF8STnHQCwRpHHxQWlnDecy1Vxc73B0oauzPi97HzfY8LgMJc-lKNvvS33MR22cYib43K3RTuM22Npu2kYy7WdnM3ehvy0eNTbIeOz83lZfHn39vP6fXX78ebD-vq2cpI1Y9XKVvFGC2hQIHDoGsqdRqGt1ozSjvGeqU5TJ4XiCjtghHEKupEtCiF7dllcneoepnaPncMwJjuYQ_J7m44mWm_-fAl-azbxznDQVEo6F3h1LpDitwnzaPY-OxwGGzBO2RCY2wnKqf4PlLCGAtUwo_SEuhRzTtjfOyKwcNLszBKWWcIywMwc1ix68fss95Kf6czAyzNgs7NDn2xwPv_ipJKKi8XomxOH88_feUwmO7_E2PmEbjRd9P_2cfWX3A0--LnjVzxi3sUphTlTQ0yeNebTslbLVhEKoCgT7AeRnMYm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1013920280</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</creator><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p &lt; 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men &gt; women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p &lt; 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p &lt; 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p &lt; 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-3282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2763</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22449446</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Aging ; Aging - pathology ; Aging - physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone (cortical) ; Bone (trabecular) ; Bone Density ; Bone mass ; Bone mineral content ; Bone mineral density ; Bone strength ; Computed tomography ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Lean body mass ; Lean mass ; Limbs ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Morphology ; Orthopedics ; pQCT ; Sex ; Sex Characteristics ; Sex differences ; Standardization ; Tibia ; Tibia - anatomy &amp; histology ; Tibia - diagnostic imaging ; Tibia - physiology ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; vBMD ; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems ; White People ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Bone (New York, N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328212007235$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26767458$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22449446$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Debra A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Michael G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><title>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</title><addtitle>Bone</addtitle><description>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p &lt; 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men &gt; women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p &lt; 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p &lt; 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p &lt; 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aging</subject><subject>Aging - pathology</subject><subject>Aging - physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone (cortical)</subject><subject>Bone (trabecular)</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Bone mass</subject><subject>Bone mineral content</subject><subject>Bone mineral density</subject><subject>Bone strength</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lean body mass</subject><subject>Lean mass</subject><subject>Limbs</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>pQCT</subject><subject>Sex</subject><subject>Sex Characteristics</subject><subject>Sex differences</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tibia - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Tibia - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tibia - physiology</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>vBMD</subject><subject>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</subject><subject>White People</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>8756-3282</issn><issn>1873-2763</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCH-CAckHikjD-diS00qqCBWklDsDZcpxJ65LaxU5W9N-TqGX5OCBOluznnXnH7xTFcwI1ASJf7-o2BqwpEFoDqwHEg2JFtGIVVZI9LFZaCVkxqulF8STnHQCwRpHHxQWlnDecy1Vxc73B0oauzPi97HzfY8LgMJc-lKNvvS33MR22cYib43K3RTuM22Npu2kYy7WdnM3ehvy0eNTbIeOz83lZfHn39vP6fXX78ebD-vq2cpI1Y9XKVvFGC2hQIHDoGsqdRqGt1ozSjvGeqU5TJ4XiCjtghHEKupEtCiF7dllcneoepnaPncMwJjuYQ_J7m44mWm_-fAl-azbxznDQVEo6F3h1LpDitwnzaPY-OxwGGzBO2RCY2wnKqf4PlLCGAtUwo_SEuhRzTtjfOyKwcNLszBKWWcIywMwc1ix68fss95Kf6czAyzNgs7NDn2xwPv_ipJKKi8XomxOH88_feUwmO7_E2PmEbjRd9P_2cfWX3A0--LnjVzxi3sUphTlTQ0yeNebTslbLVhEKoCgT7AeRnMYm</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Sherk, Vanessa D</creator><creator>Bemben, Debra A</creator><creator>Bemben, Michael G</creator><creator>Anderson, Mark A</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><author>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aging</topic><topic>Aging - pathology</topic><topic>Aging - physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone (cortical)</topic><topic>Bone (trabecular)</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Bone mass</topic><topic>Bone mineral content</topic><topic>Bone mineral density</topic><topic>Bone strength</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lean body mass</topic><topic>Lean mass</topic><topic>Limbs</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>pQCT</topic><topic>Sex</topic><topic>Sex Characteristics</topic><topic>Sex differences</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tibia - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Tibia - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tibia - physiology</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>vBMD</topic><topic>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</topic><topic>White People</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Debra A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Michael G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sherk, Vanessa D</au><au>Bemben, Debra A</au><au>Bemben, Michael G</au><au>Anderson, Mark A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</atitle><jtitle>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><addtitle>Bone</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1324</spage><epage>1331</epage><pages>1324-1331</pages><issn>8756-3282</issn><eissn>1873-2763</eissn><abstract>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p &lt; 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men &gt; women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p &lt; 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p &lt; 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p &lt; 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22449446</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 8756-3282
ispartof Bone (New York, N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331
issn 8756-3282
1873-2763
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4082662
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adult
Age Factors
Aging
Aging - pathology
Aging - physiology
Biological and medical sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone (cortical)
Bone (trabecular)
Bone Density
Bone mass
Bone mineral content
Bone mineral density
Bone strength
Computed tomography
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Lean body mass
Lean mass
Limbs
Male
Middle Aged
Morphology
Orthopedics
pQCT
Sex
Sex Characteristics
Sex differences
Standardization
Tibia
Tibia - anatomy & histology
Tibia - diagnostic imaging
Tibia - physiology
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
vBMD
Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems
White People
Young Adult
title Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A00%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Age%20and%20sex%20differences%20in%20tibia%20morphology%20in%20healthy%20adult%20Caucasians&rft.jtitle=Bone%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Sherk,%20Vanessa%20D&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1324&rft.epage=1331&rft.pages=1324-1331&rft.issn=8756-3282&rft.eissn=1873-2763&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1013920280%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1013920280&rft_id=info:pmid/22449446&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S8756328212007235&rfr_iscdi=true