Abdi-Ali, L.

Cosmi, F.

Nicolosi, A.

Sacco, S.

Saibene, L.

Saviola, G.

English

University of West Bohemia Digital Library

Bone fracture risk: density and microarchitecture

DSpace at University of West Bohemia

 36th Danubia-Adria Symposium on Advances in Experimental Mechanics 24–27 September 2019, Plzeň, Czech Republic     BONE FRACTURE RISK: DENSITY AND MICROARCHITECTURE  F. COSMI1,2, A. NICOLOSI2, S. SACCO3, L.  SAIBENE3, L. ABDI-ALI3, G. SAVIOLA3 1 Università di Trieste, DIA, via A. Valerio 10, 34127 Trieste, Italy, E-mail: cosmi@units.it; 2 M2TEST srl, Padriciano 99, Trieste, Italy, E-mail: alessandra@bestest.it; 3 IRCCS Maugeri Clinical Scientific Institutes, Pavia, Italy, E-mail: gianantonio.saviola@icsmaugeri.it  1. Introduction Osteoporosis (OP) is a systemic skeletal disease where an increase in bone fragility is due to low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue [1], which occur over a long period of time without clinical significance.  Currently, OP diagnosis is mainly based on bone densitometric measurements (BMD in DXA scans) at various sites, but over half of the fragility fractures in the population arise in women that would not be considered at risk based on BMD alone [2]. Therefore, other tools like FRAX [3], which may or may not include BMD, where mainly developed to validate treatment prescriptions. Bone turnover markers are indices of bone remodeling, useful for monitoring the patient assessing the response to therapy and treatment adherence [4]. The cortical BMD accounts for 80% of our skeleton, but bone mechanical resistance strongly depends also on the internal spatial arrangement of bone structure, that has long been considered the second key factor of bone load-bearing capacity, in addition to bone density, Fig.1.  Fig. 1. TC scan femoral neck section from: outer compact part and internal spongeous structure.  In effects, most fractures occur in patients whose T-score is outside the osteoporosis range. DXA might not represent the elective exam, or be completely reliable [5], leading to the hypothesis that fracture risk depends not only on mass loss, but also on bone architecture, whose alterations are an independent factor of increased fragility. 1.1 Bone Elastic Structure Test  The Bone Elastic Structure Test, BESTEST®, is a recently introduced analysis that can be used to quantify the quality of bone micro-architecture and its pathological alterations induced by age, pathological conditions or lack of exposure to physiological mechanical stimuli. The test is based on an application of the Cell Method, a recent  discrete method which is particularly effective from the point of  view of computation time, memory requirements and accuracy of the results [6,7]. A radiographic virtual biopsy of the patient, acquired in the proximal phalanges of the non-dominant hand, is converted  into a structural model and the response to compressive loads  along the orthogonal axes is computed, Fig.2.    Fig. 2. Virtual biopsy of the patient and simulations.  The results are then combined in an index that gives an indication of the quality of the bone structure, the BSI (Bone Structure Index) [8,9]. Similarly to DXA, the BESTEST results are expressed in terms of BSI_T-score, which compares the patient’s BSI with the mean BSI value for young Caucasian women (age 20-45) and measures this difference in number of standard deviations (SD). 87 36th Danubia-Adria Symposium on Advances in Experimental Mechanics 24–27 September 2019, Plzeň, Czech Republic     Interpretation of BSI results match those typically used in bone density, as shown in Tab.1. Table 1. Clinical reading of BSI BSI T-score Bone Structure Quality ≥ - 1 Normal < -1 and > 2.5 First level deficiency < 2.5 Significant worsening The aim of this study is the comparison of DXA and BESTEST results in a clinical application. 2. Study population. The examined population consists of 12 Caucasian women, age 39 - 74, Mean (SD) value 62.4 (10.8) years, with a normal or osteopoenic DXA femoral neck and lumbar T-score and a recent osteoporotic fracture. The control population consists of 15 Caucasian women, age 47 - 74, Mean (SD) value 64.7 (8.4) years, who had not suffered from osteoporotic fractures  before the bone evaluation in 2015 described in [8], nor in the following three years (as confirmed by interview). The BSI T-score and the DXA femoral neck T-score were available for all the examined subjects. 3. Results Results are summarized in Figures 2 to 5. As in in previous works [8, 9], there is no correlation between BSI and DEXA- T score. The DEXA T-score (neck) of the two groups was not significantly different (p=0.05). The BSI T-score of the two groups was significantly different (p= 0.0001). 4. Conclusions Despite the small number of subjects, these data seem to confirm that the BSI could be helpful for predicting fragility fractures and patient monitoring.  Fig. 2. DXA vs. BSI results are independent.  Fig. 3. Fractured group: min, max, mean, SD.   Fig. 4. Control group: min, max, mean, SD.  Conflicts of interest This work would not have been possible without the cooperation of the patients. Disclosure: FC is co-founder of M2TEST srl. References [1]  Lane JM et al. Osteoporosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2000, 372, 139-150. [2]  Pasco JA et al. The population burden of fractures originates in women with osteopenia, not osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int, 2006, 17(9), 1404-9. [3]  Kanis JA et al. Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int, 2011, 22, 2395-411. [4]  Rossini M et al. Dose-dependent short-term effects of single high doses of oral vitamin D(3) on bone turnover markers. Calcif Tissue Int, 2012; 91: 365-9 [5]  Schuit SCE et al. Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Bone, 2004; 34: 195–202. [6]  Tonti E: A Direct Discrete Formulation of Field Laws: The Cell Method. CMES 1, 11-26. [7]  Cosmi F. Numerical Evaluation of Trabecular Bone Alterations, MCB, 201, 12, 87-105. [8]  Cosmi F et al. Osteoporosis risk factors and bone microstructure evaluation: a population breakdown. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2018, 5, 26772–77. [9]  Cosmi F, Saracchini S. Bone Structure Evaluation: Perspectives In Oncology. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2019, 7, 455–462. 88

http://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/35344/1/Cosmi.pdf

Bone fracture risk: density and microarchitecture

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of West Bohemia Digital Library

DSpace at University of West Bohemia