메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Fen Lee Hew (Subang Jaya Medical Centre Subang Jaya Selangor Malaysia) Siew Pheng Chan (Subang Jaya Medical Centre Subang Jaya Selangor Malaysia) Swan Sim Yeap (Department of Medicine Subang Jaya Medical Centre)
저널정보
대한골다공증학회 Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia Vol.4 No.4
발행연도
2018.1
수록면
151 - 151 (1page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
We read with interest the article by Iida and colleagues looking at sarcopenia in patients with vertebral fractures [1]. Both these conditions are important issues, especially in Asia. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures are not uncommon in the elderly and are under recognised [2]. A recent review article on vertebral fracture found that the age-standardised incidence was highest in South Korea, followed by USA and Hong Kong, e.g., for women, the rates were 1377, 939, and 662 per 100,000 respectively, i.e., 2 of the top 3 countries with a high incidence of vertebral fractures are in Asia [3]. For sarcopenia, the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia estimated that between 4.1% and 11.5% of the over 65 year old age group would have sarcopenia [4]. Thus, rehabilitation after an osteoporotic fracture should obviously be seen as a musculoskeletal problem rather than just a skeletal problem. This study has highlighted several important issues that would have clinical implications. Sarcopenia assessment premorbid/ prior to, and at presentation, of a fracture is not universally comprehensive with a few exceptions. The fact that this study demonstrated the prognostic role of such assessment is important given the much poorer outcome in terms of ability to return home 1 year after the fracture. Healthcare resources could be directed to those at higher risk to improve outcomes. However, we have several queries and comments: The authors have defined sarcopenia based only on densitometric criteria i.e., muscle mass, rather than the suggested combination of muscle function and muscle mass. Although the authors stated that they could not evaluate walking speed in the patients following a fracture, could the patients have had their grip strength assessed? We are not clear as to why the subjects were divided into “Osteoporosis” and “Without osteoporosis” groups. Since if they have had “osteoporotic vertebral fractures,” shouldn’t they all be osteoporotic? There were 396 study subjects, but only “about” 336 subjects had a 1-year follow-up. Could the authors be more specific as to exactly how many patients had a 1-year follow-up? In addition, can they provide information on those who were not followed up? If the patients who dropped out were significantly different in any of the characteristics, then the conclusion of the study would be less robust. This study only looked at patients hospitalised for their vertebral fracture, presumably consecutive admissions without selection. Were there patients who did not require hospitalization? And were they studied in a similar manner? Almost all the male elderly subjects in this cohort have sarcopenia e 102 out of 111. Do the authors have any comments as to why this is so? Many studies, though not all, have shown higher rates of sarcopenia in men compared to women [4], but never by this much especially when there is no difference in the age between the genders. Or does this reflect the social background of men being less likely to be involved socially and thus less active which may have contributed to the higher rate of sarcopenia? We know that earlier and adequate pain control improves mobility and reduces bone loss. The inclusion criteria include subjects within a month of onset of symptoms. We do know that a month of inactivity can cause quite substantial skeletal muscle loss. Do the authors have data to look at the time of presentation fromonset of symptoms to see if this has any bearing on sarcopenia? As indicated by the authors, vitamin D (in particular) and bisphosphonate treatment may improve outcome, was there data to indicate the rate of treatment in this cohort? Table 3 is titled “Comparison between patients with and without osteoporosis,” but yet the table headings are “sarcopenia” and “without sarcopenia.” Is there a typographical error?

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (4)

참고문헌 신청
Hiroki Iida / 2018 / Sarcopenia affects conservative treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fracture / Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia 4(3):114~117 dbpia Gehlbach SH / 2000 / Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting / Osteoporos Int 11:577~582 google schola Ballane G / 2017 / Worldwide prevalence and incidence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures / Osteoporos Int 28:1531~1542 google schola Chen LK / 2016 / Recent advances in sarcopenia research in Asia: 2016 update from the Asian working group for sarcopenia / J Am Med Dir Assoc 767:e1~e7 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0