Densitometría ósea y tamaño uterino: una relación de utilidad práctica en mujeres climatéricas
Background: Double beam bone densitometry allows to select climacteric women who will benefit from hormone replacement. However, it is not always affordable in clinical practice. Aim: To study possible alternative markers of bone mineral density. Patients and methods: A retrospective survey of clima...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | Spanish / Castilian |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Médica de Santiago
2000
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872000001000008 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background: Double beam bone densitometry allows to select climacteric women who will benefit from hormone replacement. However, it is not always affordable in clinical practice. Aim: To study possible alternative markers of bone mineral density. Patients and methods: A retrospective survey of climacteric women in whom bone mineral density was measured when hormone replacement therapy was started. Eighty one women were studied and in 27, uterine size index was obtained from pelvic ultrasound examinations. Women with and without uterine size index measurements were analyzed separately. Relationships of bone mineral density with age, lapse from menopause, body mass index and uterine size index were sought. Results: There was a significant regression between the lapse in years from menopause and lumbar bone mineral density in the group without uterine size index measurements (r2=0.228, ANOVA p=0.014). There was also a significant regression of lumbar bone mineral density with the uterine size index (r2=0.236, ANOVA p=0.01) in those women in whom this measurement was available. No other variables were associated with bone mineral density. Conclusion: In this group of patients, the lapse after menopause and uterine size index are predictors of lumbar bone mineral density (Rev Méd Chile 2000; 128: 1127-31). |
|---|