4.5 Article

Longitudinal assessment of bone quality by quantitative ultrasonography in children and adolescents

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 1003-1010

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.02.1429

Keywords

bone quality; QUS; children; longitudinal; ultrasonography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Among the techniques available to assess bone quality, quantitative ultrasonography of the proximal phalanges of the hand (QUS) has emerged as particularly attractive. In this study. amplitude-dependent speed of sound (AD-SoS) and bone transmission time (BTT) were obtained by the sonographic device DBM Sonic BP IGEA in two sessions at two years interval. in a school-age population (589 subjects. 290 mol/L and 299F, aged 3 to 16 NI) with the aim to determine accuracy of QUS measurements. evaluate QUS variable changes during growth. relate these values with age and growth variables. Mean AD-SoS and BTT at age classes from; to 12 y as determined at the first and second measurement sessions were not significantly different. A significant increment (p < 0.0001) between the first and the second measurement was observed for both QUS variables. AD-SoS and BTT showed significantly different variations in the various age groups (ANOVA). Correlations were found of AD-SoS and BTT increments with age, height, weight, pubertal stage and with height growth velocity (p < 0.05). AD-SoS and BTT increment curves presented a very similar trend decreasing from 4 to 7 y of age. Thereafter a plateau was reached up to the age of 10 to 11 y in girls and 11 to 12 v in boys. when an increase was observed corresponding to pubertal growth rate acceleration. In conclusion. the present study would confirm that QUS measurements are accurate. Ad-SoS and BTT increment models are similar to most growth velocity curves and follow a strongly age- and growth-dependent pattern.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available