%PDF-1.4
%
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
80 0 obj
<>stream
Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Macintosh
2005-01-10T11:16:19Z
2024-03-28T14:32:16-07:00
QuarkXPressª: AdobePS 8.8.0 (301)
2024-03-28T14:32:16-07:00
application/pdf
Heather
2003-969.feb
uuid:cd4a30b4-1dd1-11b2-0a00-ab0827bd7700
uuid:cd4a30b6-1dd1-11b2-0a00-900000000000
endstream
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/Thumb 7 0 R/Type/Page>>
endobj
1 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/Thumb 9 0 R/Type/Page>>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/Thumb 11 0 R/Type/Page>>
endobj
90 0 obj
[94 0 R]
endobj
91 0 obj
<>stream
1 g
/GS0 gs
0 792 m
0 792 l
f
q
13.5 787.5 585 -783 re
W n
q
0 792.03 612 -792 re
W n
0 0 0 1 K
/GS1 gs
53.964 76.5 m
558.972 76.5 l
S
0 0 0 0 k
52.822 69.665 64.178 -15.665 re
f*
BT
0 0 0 1 k
/T1_0 1 Tf
8 0 0 8 53.8216 56.7343 Tm
(294)Tj
ET
0 0 0 0 k
356 69.665 203 -15.665 re
f*
BT
0 0 0 1 k
/T1_0 1 Tf
-0.00011 Tc 0.02499 Tw 8 0 0 8 424.3613 56.7343 Tm
(The Journal of Rheumatology 2005; 32:2)Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0.2885 Tw 10 0 0 10 53.468 735.6616 Tm
(desmophytes been scored to determine their association)Tj
0.2903 Tw 0 -1.2 TD
[(with BMD measured by conventional DEXA; however)39.7 (,)]TJ
0.01559 Tc 0.3593 Tw T*
[(these studies lacked BMD measurements by LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3)]TJ
-0.00011 Tc 0 Tw T*
(DEXA)Tj
0 Tc 7.5 0 0 7.5 81.2341 702.9616 Tm
(8,9)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.0256 Tw 10 0 0 10 90.6091 699.6616 Tm
(. Patients with syndesmophytes were even exclud-)Tj
-0.0309 Tw -3.7141 -1.2 Td
[(ed from several studies to decrease their confounding ef)17.8 (fects)]TJ
0.0668 Tw T*
(on lumbar spine BMD measurements)Tj
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 205.5429 678.9615 Tm
[(10,1)49.2 (1)]TJ
-0.00011 Tc 0.0668 Tw 10 0 0 10 222.0492 675.6616 Tm
(. Our results con-)Tj
0.0056 Tw -16.8581 -1.2 Td
[(firm the theory that BMD measurements by LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA)]TJ
0.02859 Tw T*
[(in patients with )54.8 (AS are not falsified by the presence of syn-)]TJ
0 Tw T*
(desmophytes.)Tj
0.048 Tw 1.2 -1.2 Td
(The proximal femur is another site commonly measured)Tj
0.0611 Tw -1.2 -1.2 Td
[(by DEXA. )17.7 (W)79.9 (e observed a significant dif)17.7 (ference in femoral)]TJ
0.12061 Tw T*
(neck BMD between patients and controls. Bronson, )Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
21.7549 0 Td
(et al)Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 289.718 606.9615 Tm
(2)Tj
-0.00011 Tc -0.0144 Tw 10 0 0 10 53.468 591.6616 Tm
(found that BMD at the femoral neck was significantly lower)Tj
0.1368 Tw T*
[(in the patients with )54.9 (AS compared to controls. It has been)]TJ
0.0094 Tc 0.36549 Tw T*
(suggested that BMD of femoral neck is significantly)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.0029 Tw T*
[(decreased in late )54.8 (AS, but it is debatable whether this is so in)]TJ
0.2981 Tw T*
(early disease)Tj
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 107.8039 546.9615 Tm
(5,10,12)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.2981 Tw 10 0 0 10 130.3039 543.6616 Tm
(. Because of the controversy whether)Tj
0.0565 Tw -7.6836 -1.2 Td
[(DEXA)-251.7 (of the femoral neck can detect bone loss in patients)]TJ
0.0687 Tw T*
[(with )54.8 (AS, this method is not accepted universally for meas-)]TJ
-0.0177 Tw T*
[(urement of BMD in patients with )54.9 (AS. Moreover)39.7 (, it is impos-)]TJ
0.2718 Tw T*
(sible for patients with bilateral total hip arthroplasty to)Tj
0.02499 Tw T*
[(under)17.7 (go this method.)]TJ
0.0873 Tw 1.2 -1.22 Td
[(As for the LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA)-282.5 (scan, it has the advantage of)]TJ
0.362 Tw -1.2 -1.22 Td
(isolating the body of L3 vertebra from the ankylosed)Tj
-0.004 Tw 0 -1.22 TD
(zygapophyseal joints, anterior or posterior syndesmophytes,)Tj
0.0712 Tw T*
(the ribs, and the ilium. In this method, patients lie on their)Tj
0.17349 Tw T*
[(side, thus kyphotic patients can under)17.7 (go an easier proce-)]TJ
-0.0341 Tw T*
[(dure. )17.7 (While our patients did not have lateral superposition of)]TJ
0.13721 Tw T*
(ribs or iliac crest on vertebral body of L3, one should be)Tj
-0.0081 Tw T*
[(cautious interpreting a LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA)-187 (of a severely kyphot-)]TJ
0.24181 Tw T*
(ic patient. Consistent with our findings, Bronson, )Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
0.2417 Tw 21.6337 0 Td
(et al)Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 289.718 377.1617 Tm
(2)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.06129 Tw 10 0 0 10 53.468 361.6617 Tm
[(demonstrated as well that the LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 projection was more)]TJ
0.3623 Tw T*
[(sensitive in detecting decreased vertebral BMD in )54.8 (AS)]TJ
0.2265 Tw T*
(patients. In their study they enrolled patients with long-)Tj
0.1346 Tw T*
[(standing disease; however)39.7 (, they did not describe the radi-)]TJ
0.175 Tw T*
(ographic features of their patients regarding the status of)Tj
-0.01019 Tw T*
(syndesmophytes. Our findings suggest that syndesmophytes)Tj
-0.01469 Tw T*
(do not give rise to misinterpretations in evaluating the BMD)Tj
0.0199 Tc 0.4126 Tw T*
[(of LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA. )54.8 (Although we did not score the)]TJ
-0.00011 Tc 0.1373 Tw T*
[(zygapophyseal joints separately)64.8 (, it is well established that)]TJ
0.10831 Tw T*
(zygapophyseal joint involvement and the presence of syn-)Tj
0.02499 Tw T*
[(desmophytes in )54.8 (AS are correlated)]TJ
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 188.8577 242.9616 Tm
(13)Tj
10 0 0 10 196.3577 239.6617 Tm
(.)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.2899 Tw -13.089 -1.25 Td
[(Not using well known indices such as the Bath )54.8 (AS)]TJ
0.0199 Tc 0.36549 Tw -1.2 -1.25 Td
[(Disease )54.9 (Activity Index \(BASDAI\) and the Bath )55 (AS)]TJ
-0.00011 Tc 0.10831 Tw 0 -1.25 TD
(Functional Index \(BASFI\) to evaluate disease activity and)Tj
0.2142 Tw T*
(functional status may be regarded as a drawback of our)Tj
0.04601 Tw T*
[(study; however)39.7 (, validated )17.7 (T)35 (urkish versions of those indices)]TJ
0.1472 Tw T*
[(are not available at present. Nor did we use the Bath )54.8 (AS)]TJ
0.0186 Tw T*
(Radiology Index, because it hardly changes with each addi-)Tj
0.01711 Tw T*
(tional syndesmophyte)Tj
0 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 141.1242 142.9617 Tm
(14)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.01711 Tw 10 0 0 10 148.6242 139.6617 Tm
(. Instead, we used a specific scoring)Tj
0.06 Tw -9.5156 -1.25 Td
[(with regard to the P)91.7 (A)-255.1 (DEXA)-255.2 (scan, that is, L2\320L4 vertebral)]TJ
0 Tw T*
(levels.)Tj
0.0957 Tw 27.6 62.1 Td
(Although we found that osteoporotic cases were identi-)Tj
0.06441 Tw -1.2 -1.2 Td
[(fied more easily by P)91.7 (A)-259.5 (DEXA)-259.6 (than LA)110.7 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA, osteo-)]TJ
-0.0051 Tc 0.0916 Tw 0 -1.2 TD
[(porosis detected and BMD measured by P)91.6 (A)-281.7 (DEXA)-281.8 (did not)]TJ
0.21919 Tw T*
[(dif)17.7 (fer significantly between patients and controls. On the)]TJ
0.07269 Tw T*
[(other hand, the of)17.6 (ficial position of the International Society)]TJ
0.01669 Tw T*
(for Clinical Densitometry for the lateral spine is not to use it)Tj
0.30299 Tw T*
(for the diagnosis of osteoporosis)Tj
-0.005 Tc 0 Tw 7.5 0 0 7.5 457.9008 666.9615 Tm
(15)Tj
-0.0051 Tc 0.3029 Tw 10 0 0 10 465.3259 663.6616 Tm
[(. Similarly)64.8 (, we found)]TJ
0.01559 Tw -14.7858 -1.2 Td
[(fewer osteoporotic cases by LA)110.6 (T)91.9 (-L3 DEXA)-205.9 (compared to P)91.6 (A)]TJ
-0.0029 Tw T*
[(DEXA. However)39.6 (, only vertebral BMD measured by LA)110.6 (T)91.9 (-L3)]TJ
0.02499 Tw T*
[(DEXA)-215.2 (dif)17.7 (fered significantly between patients and controls.)]TJ
/T1_2 1 Tf
-0.00011 Tc 0 Tw 0 -2.4 TD
(REFERENCES)Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0.02499 Tw 8 0 0 8 324.468 593.6616 Tm
[(1.)-875.1 (Pimentel dos Santos F)79.7 (, Constantin )54.8 (A, Laroche M, et al. )17.7 (Whole body)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(and regional bone mineral density in ankylosing spondylitis.)Tj
0 -1.25 TD
(J Rheumatol 2001;28:547-9.)Tj
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(2.)-875.1 (Bronson )17.7 (WD, )17.7 (W)79.9 (alker SE, Hillman LS, Keisler LS, Hoyt )17.7 (T)74 (,)-0.1 ( )54.8 (Allen)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(SH. Bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone )Tj
T*
(metabolism in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol )Tj
0 Tc 0 Tw T*
(1998;25:929-35.)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.02499 Tw -1.675 -1.25 Td
[(3.)-875.1 (van der Linden S, )17.7 (V)110.8 (alkenbur)17.7 (g HA, Cats )54.8 (A. Evaluation of diagnostic)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
[(criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. )54.8 (A)-220.1 (proposal for modification of)]TJ
T*
[(the New )36.8 (Y)99.8 (ork Criteria. )54.8 (Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:361-8.)]TJ
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(4.)-875.1 (Ralston SH, Urquhart GDK, Brzeski M, Sturrock RD. Prevalence)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(of vertebral compression fractures due to osteoporosis in )Tj
0 Tc T*
(ankylosing spondylitis. BMJ 1990;300:563-5.)Tj
-0.00011 Tc -1.675 -1.25 Td
[(5.)-875.1 (Lee )36.8 (YSL, Schlotzhauer )17.7 (T)74 (, Ott SM, et al. Skeletal status of men with)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
[(early and late ankylosing spondylitis. )54.8 (Am J Med 1997;103:233-41.)]TJ
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(6.)-875.1 (Mullaji )54.8 (AB, Upadhyay SS, Ho EK. Bone mineral density in )]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
[(ankylosing spondylitis. DEXA)-220.2 (comparison of control subjects with)]TJ
T*
[(mild and advanced cases. J Bone Joint Sur)17.7 (g Br 1994;76:660-5.)]TJ
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(7.)-875.1 (Donnelly S, Doyle DV)128.8 (, Denton )54.8 (A, Rolfe I, McCloskey EV)128.8 (, Spector)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(TD. Bone mineral density and vertebral compression fracture rates)Tj
T*
[(in ankylosing spondylitis. )54.8 (Ann Rheum Dis 1994;53:1)36.8 (17-21.)]TJ
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(8.)-875.1 (El Maghraoui )54.8 (A, Borderie D, Cherruau B, Edouard R, Dougados)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(M, Roux C. Osteoporosis, body composition, and bone turnover in)Tj
T*
(ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 1999;26:2205-9.)Tj
-1.675 -1.25 Td
[(9.)-875.1 (Speden DJ, Calin )54.8 (AI, Ring FJ, Bhalla )54.8 (AK. Bone mineral density)64.9 (,)]TJ
1.675 -1.25 Td
(calcaneal ultrasound, and bone turnover markers in women with)Tj
T*
(ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2002;29:516-21.)Tj
-2.175 -1.25 Td
[(10.)-875.1 (Gratac\227s J, Collado )54.8 (A, Pons F)79.7 (, et al. Significant loss of bone mass)]TJ
2.175 -1.25 Td
[(in patients with early)64.8 (, active ankylosing spondylitis: a followup)]TJ
T*
[(study)64.9 (. )54.8 (Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:2319-24.)]TJ
-2.1381 -1.25 Td
[(1)36.8 (1)-0.1 (.)-875.1 (Mitra D, Elvins DM, Speden DJ, Collins )54.8 (AJ. )17.7 (The prevalence of )]TJ
2.1381 -1.25 Td
(vertebral fractures in mild ankylosing spondylitis and their )Tj
T*
[(relationship to bone mineral density)64.8 (. Rheumatology Oxford)]TJ
0 Tc 0 Tw T*
(2000;39:85-9.)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.02499 Tw -2.175 -1.25 Td
[(12.)-875.1 (Szejnfeld )17.7 (VL, Monier)19.7 (-Faugere M-C, Bognar BJ, Ferraz MB,)]TJ
2.175 -1.25 Td
(Malluche HH. Systemic osteopenia and mineralization defect in)Tj
T*
(patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 1997;24:683-8.)Tj
-2.175 -1.25 Td
[(13.)-875.1 (de )17.7 (Vlam K, Mielants H, )17.7 (V)110.8 (eys EM. Involvement of the )]TJ
2.175 -1.25 Td
(zygapophyseal joints in ankylosing spondylitis: relation to the)Tj
T*
(bridging syndesmophytes. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1738-45.)Tj
-2.175 -1.25 Td
[(14.)-875.1 (Mackay K, Mack C, Brophy S, Calin )54.8 (A. )17.7 (The Bath )54.8 (Ankylosing)]TJ
2.175 -1.25 Td
[(Spondylitis Radiology Index \(BASRI\). )54.8 (Arthritis Rheum)]TJ
0 Tc 0 Tw T*
(1998;41:2263-70.)Tj
-0.00011 Tc 0.02499 Tw -2.175 -1.25 Td
[(15.)-875.1 (Hamdy RC, Petak SM, Lenchik L; International Society for)]TJ
2.175 -1.25 Td
(Clinical Densitometry Position Development Panel and Scientific)Tj
T*
[(Advisory Committee. )17.7 (Which central dual X-ray absorptiometry)]TJ
T*
(skeletal sites and regions of interest should be used to determine)Tj
T*
(the diagnosis of osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom 2002;5 )Tj
0 Tw T*
[(Suppl:S1)36.8 (1-8.)]TJ
ET
0 0 0 0 k
/GS0 gs
103.782 81.583 407.5 -10.833 re
f*
0.5 w
/GS1 gs
103.782 81.583 407.5 -10.833 re
S
Q
Q
q
0 0 612 792 re
W n
BT
0 g
/GS2 gs
/T1_3 8 Tf
106.328 74 Td
(Personal non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright\
\251 2005. All rights reserved.)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
/GS2 gs
/T1_4 1 Tf
10 0 0 10 540 17 Tm
( )Tj
0 0.48627 0.77255 rg
/GS2 gs
-7.22298 0 Td
(www.jrheum.org)Tj
0 g
/GS2 gs
-16.72996 0 Td
(Downloaded on March 28, 2024 from )Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
11 0 obj
<>stream
8;Z\7?$ZVs#ikn#j?!7n&Hmr`;giB3^3"OhOG"]]k0NlkMpbVn\B'T-Ka%r0/b]2g
NBCUV!$bMM#H43A8;Y#WA&bS)MRC\c*n(OV2'8F;a;("Y\?ed6q\mpk$/RP!jVV*d
3,e-3&iR"D3'ga72(i<;IQWTtJhl(%Gp0S8Ak1`+PoeMW1efNQCb>!r-fJPBps<,!5Z@P3;g'bI=#0loOJWj/tW\:$a(
NL;#[aCPD=*+T'ZepA.VrGdX^C*_n.)\[RmYlhMOTHB5#4jkm5);RH&foQ]Fs0gS=
,nQppN-UOdFB"iK"W3fSm1d,lEI^NNFZ+'s1n1@%!!FiWRhfX#`_u5N>%fi5^59jk
a'F[*@Q9.g/VC5sO`2jr+cZ3>OQi3B@8MZ(*e(.p!f8[LLfb<`)HXhF^a>JjY?#)U
'C-HGg)6cSS:DAS7?,&=g]u:bZS?8?bbL!?9:6`m\KBaf/V)L,3=/QVIJ1_
,6T$c\ahe2F'4g]:K9F*a=>l_,&QY;ct;,Rl<=#5oCuML6rT*\%e-gJ6s-#Sac%R[
;OTA1]CrlnAL
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 255 14 0 R]
endobj
14 0 obj
<>stream
J,g]g+e/h_!_gCtO=0f)$P%cIi8Zdfc5&3j_8$7g.@L`YKUJNGBP\poR=_;Dl'P(T
(7Boo^^S:71(MN]ZQX/+Cbu.lK"p74pe1T%s.DY%&\1TdJhr54.M9au6>79n6`Q:4
PbLSZTLEE(8E@'*1mg_*eTnN*;*'V3+gm-EEetX%;Bo$ur2ss*N`.-!.kG_q6GDD'
dKoL!8Ka#EV,@V!\j8ZFbp6EE<9cn=N6j0nf;(&;QU6bUD')c@\
9-d\DA=cZ0Q>gIM$$;cd2O@&a;X,Nn_aP(]I1aRc(K1^ue>
gF/(+GaKo$qneLWDrQ#;5\S(\$q'4Q,85`-8;S(=Z"WSBOV*FM)4,?B],R
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>
endobj
56 0 obj
<>
endobj
73 0 obj
<>
endobj
85 0 obj
<>
endobj
55 0 obj
<>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
HLPw9v_lEY=I1WCITD9.\8pÂ6<0 Z"&PKHu҉I$i5$ͳ{3vW;3~$F$*s튗l[v y)
9<3\#geR;B>
j$a`z2H2tL\ܢqq+2ᅂaQrRZM|\':2sSȴ8Rh*3.4M:8,V
V`DS$e;*KB+^C=gVjf/w50MCup1t+TW߀7\>eNɐ?)=렱(I- Y>b[Zࠜn.I+eߩZ
'(?!eZ/y2İ
RKmNx˘ߣ,,?
?%'9 vUn݅EFlpނ@Nj~}W5'OR=Hؚgg444q8HǽL3DtfC"˞16˟#!
[ūqZjnhUBBbآ>&rlǸD+t
)uZo1r7PRg4pg]oܶ6й0~.TzA¥'v>}(BHBuqD'%#KVeR;?ʵ1Z?B[""