Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 16;16(1):33.
doi: 10.1007/s11657-021-00896-8.

Cortical bone thickness predicts the quantitative bone mineral density of the proximal humerus

Florian Schmidutz  1   2   3 , Shuang G Yan  4   5 , Christoph Schopf  4 , Christoph Ihle  6 , Marc-Daniel Ahrend  7   6 , Christoph M Sprecher  7
Affiliations

Cortical bone thickness predicts the quantitative bone mineral density of the proximal humerus

Florian Schmidutz et al. Arch Osteoporos. .

Abstract

Cortical thickness determined at the humerus can serve as an easy and reliable screening tool to predict the local bone status when quantitative bone mineral density (BMD) measurements are not available. It can therefore serve as a rapid screening tool in fragility fractures to identify patients requiring further diagnostic or osteoporosis treatment.

Introduction: Quantitative bone mineral density (BMD) of the humerus is difficult to determine but relevant for osteoporosis and fracture treatment. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femur and lumbar spine overestimates the humeral BMD and is not ubiquitously available. Therefore, this study evaluated whether the cortical bone thickness (CBT) of the humerus or DXA of the forearm is able to predict humeral BMD.

Methods: Humeral BMD of 54 upper cadaver extremities (22 pairs, 10 single) (19-90 years) was determined by high-resolution peripheral-quantitative-computed-tomography (HR-pQCT) (volumetric BMD (vBMD)) and DXA (areal BMD (aBMD)) of the proximal humerus and distal forearm. Average and gauge cortical bone thickness (CBTavg/ CBTg) of the humeral diaphysis was determined from standard radiographs (XR) and computed-tomography (CT) and compared to the humeral BMD. Pearson (r) and intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICC) were used to compare results and rater-reliability.

Results: CBTavg from XR strongly correlated with the humeral BMD (r = 0.78 aBMD (DXA) and r = 0.64 vBMD (HR-pQCT) (p < 0.0001)). The CBTg revealed a weaker correlation (r = 0.57 aBMD and r = 0.43 vBMD). CBT derived from XR strongly correlated to those from the CT (r = 0.82-0.90) and showed an excellent intra- and inter-rater correlation (ICC 0.79-0.92). Distal forearm aBMD correlated well with the humeral aBMD (DXA) (r = 0.77) and paired specimens highly correlated to the contralateral side (humerus r = 0.89, radius r = 0.97).

Conclusions: The CBTavg can reliably be determined from standard radiographs and allows a good prediction of quantitative humeral bone mineral density (aBMD or vBMD) if measurements are not available. Furthermore, the distal forearm or the contralateral humerus can serve as a side to estimate the BMD if the ipsilateral side is impaired.

Keywords: Cortical index; Fracture; Humerus; Microstructure; Osteoporosis; Radius.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Lee SH, Dargent-Molina P, Breart G, Study EGEdlO (2002) Risk factors for fractures of the proximal humerus: results from the EPIDOS prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 17(5):817–825. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.5.817 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Bruyere O, Veronese N, Lorentzon M, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Adib G, Al-Daghri N, Campusano C, Chandran M, Dawson-Hughes B, Javaid K, Jiwa F, Johansson H, Lee JK, Liu E, Messina D, Mkinsi O, Pinto D, Prieto-Alhambra D, Saag K, Xia W, Zakraoui L, Reginster J (2020) Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 31(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05176-3 - DOI
    1. Egol KA, Ong CC, Walsh M, Jazrawi LM, Tejwani NC, Zuckerman JD (2008) Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA Types 11) treated with locked plates. J Orthop Trauma 22(3):159–164. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318169ef2a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schneider E, Goldhahn J, Burckhardt P (2005) The challenge: fracture treatment in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S1–S2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1766-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clinton J, Franta A, Polissar NL, Neradilek B, Mounce D, Fink HA, Schousboe JT, Matsen FA 3rd (2009) Proximal humeral fracture as a risk factor for subsequent hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(3):503–511. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01529 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources