Describe The Aetiology Of Osteoporosis Health And Social Care Essay

Osteoporosis has been defined as “ A systematic skeletal upset characterised by low bone mass and microarchitectural impairment of bone tissue, with a attendant addition in bone breakability and susceptability to fracture ” ( AJSM ) . Bone strength depends on a figure of inderdependent factors including: bone tissue size and mass, construction of bone ( spacial distribution, form, microarchitecture ) , and the intrinsic belongingss of bone ( porousness, matrix mineralisation, collagen traits and microdamage ) ( Nikander et al, 2010 ) . There are many causes of OP including some which are hereditry and others that come from your life style. Certain groups of people are at a greater hazard of OP and these include: persons with old breakability break, drawn-out corticosteriod intervention, adult females who have experienced climacteric or undergone a hysterectomy, people with liver or thryoid disease, people with a BMI of less than 19kg/m2 and persons with a history of falling ( Chan et al, 2003 ) . OP is analysed by mensurating bone mineral denseness ( BMD ) and this can be done utilizing extremist sound at sites such as the radius and heel, nevertheless double energy x-ray absorptiometry is the gilded criterion for BMD measuring ( Chan et al, 2003 ) . This is so as DXA provides a “ safe and convienent manner of mensurating BMD accurately, reproducibly and with minimum radiation exposure ” ( Jordan et al, 2002 ) . In 1994 the World Health Organisation recommended BMD thresholds be devised for adult females to assist clear up OP. This graduated table was developed and OP was defined as a “ Value of BMD or cram mineral content 2.5 standard divergences below the immature mean value ” ( Lau, 2000 ) ( Fig 1 ) . However it must be noted that although this graduated table is widely accepted it is non accepted by the international scientific community and by regulative bureaus.

Fig.1 Threshold values for adult females based on distribution of BMD ( Lau, 2000 ) .

Oesteoporosis ( OP ) is a major load on public wellness through its nexus with break. The World Health Organisation statistics show that OP affects over 75million people in Europe, Japan and the U.S.A entirely. The economic load of OP is every bit important with the cost of OP intervention bing that of cardiovascular disease and asthma in the U.S.A. and besides OP instances result in more hospital bed yearss than shot, myocardial misdemeanor or chest malignant neoplastic disease. These statistics highlight the turning issue with OP in the modern universe and in this essay I will discourse some of the causes and current interventions for this disease.

Causes of Osteoporosis

There are two types of OP and these are primary OP and secondary OP. Primary OP is that bone loss that occurs during the aging rhythm. While secondary OP is that bone loss that occurs from specific good defined clinical upsets ( FitzPatrick, 2002 ) . Primary OP has many pathogenetic factors and an early survey by Kelepouris et Al ( 1995 ) attempted to measure work forces ( N=47 ) with terrible OP and reexamine the reported characteristics of OP. In this survey the result steps included clinical appraisal, radiogram, chemical analyses of serum and piss, endocrine checks, skeletal densitometry and histomorphometry of iliac crest biopsy specimens. The consequences of this survey found that of the topics, 57 % had vertebral breaks and 34 % had appendicular breaks. Casual factors found included glucocorticoseriod intervention ( 8 ) , hypogonadism ( 7 ) and inordinate intoxicant ingestion ( 7 ) , anticonvulsant usage, osteomalacia, terrible thyrotoxicosis and bone marrow neoplasia. Spine mineral denseness was good below the average value for healthy immature work forces and from the biopseys of 13 of the topic ‘s with OP it was found that these work forces had reduced trabeculate bone formation rates and somewhat increased reabsorption surfaces. In work forces trabeculate bone loss starts earlier in life in conformity with alterations in insulin like growing factor 1 regulation system whereas corticol bone loss occurs normally later in life due to lessenings in bioavailable testosterone and estrogen increased bone remodelling ( Ebeling, 2008 ) . This survey highlighted the factors associated with primary OP nevertheless farther surveies are needed to thoroughly evaluate identifiable causes of OP in work forces because “ definable infective factors are seen in many instances which may non be OP ” ( Kelepouris et al, 1995 ) .

Secondary OP has many finding factors including OP associated with drug therapy. Glucocorticoids are chemicals used to handle adrenal inadequacy and certain inflamatory upsets nevertheless “ the effects of glucocorticoids on bone and mineral metamorphosis lead to rapid acceleration of bone loss ” ( Fitzpatrick, 2002 ) . This has lead to instances of glucocorticoid induced OP. This is caused due to the glucocorticoid forestalling collagen synthesis and differentiaton of oesteoblasts which reduces bone formation. A survey by Van Staa et Al ( 2000 ) tried to set up a minimal threshold of glucocorticoid usage associated with bone loss. In this survey they found that with a day-to-day dosage of less than 2.5mg hip break hazard was 0.99 comparative to the control and this rose to 1.77 and 2.27 with doses of 2.5-7.5mg and greater than 7.5mg severally. Therefore this drug when prescribed for unwellness must be carefully monitored with disposal to avoid OP development.

Another type of secondary OP is that induced by hormone upsets. One illustration of such a upset is hyperthyroidism “ Hyperthyroidism increases bone turnover which may take to cram loss from the spinal column and hip ” ( Rosen et al, 1992 ) . In patients who experience hyperthyroidism, there are increased serum degrees of osteocalcin and alkalic phosphatase evident. This leads to thyroid endocrine induced bone reabsorption and may do OP. This status is non lasting nevertheless and a survey by Rosen et Al ( 1992 ) examined the intervention of this upset with a longitudinal survey on alterations in lumbar BMD after recievement of a intervention ( euthyroidism ) . This survey examined 21 topics ( 11 of which had the upset ) for lumbar BMD utilizing double photon absorptiometry in 1986 and repeated the step in 1991 utilizing x-ray densitometry. The consequences showed that lumbar BMD increased by 11.3 % in the intercession group and by merely 2.6 % in the control group. This highlighted that the intervention was successful in increasing lumbar spinal column BMD. The survey did hold a figure of restrictions nevertheless such as different analysis techniques between tests and a little sample size.

Two other signifiers of secondary OP include eating upsets and immobilsation. Anorexia nervosa has been correlated with OP due to the inauspicious effects it has on the castanetss of the skeleton. These include “ estrogen lack, endogenous hydrocortisone surplus, reduced IGF-1 degrees, protein-energy malnutrition, and secondary hyperparathyroidism due to low dietetic Ca consumption or vitamin D lack ” ( Fitzpatrick, 2002 ) . This statement was backed up by a reterospective cohort survey by Lucas et Al ( 1999 ) which tracked topics diagnosed with anorexia nervosa over a clip period untill decease or latest clinical assignment and analysed break history. This survey concluded that immature people with anorexia nervosa are at a greater hazard of break later in life and in such OP. Finally immobilization is another factor which may take to OP. Immobilization can do speedy and efficient bone loss ; this is due to hypercalciuria developed by drawn-out bed remainder. A survey by Rittweger et Al ( 2009 ) analysed bone loss in the lower leg after 35days of bed remainder. Bone scans were obtained during baseline testing, after bed remainder and 14 yearss post the bed remainder period. This survey found that bone loss was important, with the greatest loss happening at the kneecap which accounted for 3.2 % of the basline value. This should be taken into consideration when covering with people with disabilties who may be bedbound and in such alternate interventions must be considered to cover with the hazard of developing OP. This survey besides suggested that recovery from an immobilised province and exercising will assist better BMD and hence it is an of import component in the battle against OP.

Preventive Measures

There are many steps taken to forestall the oncoming of OP and some have been discussed in the old subdivision. The figure below ( Fig. 2 ) was taken from Ebeling ( 2008 ) and it is a suggested program for intervention for people with OP. As you can clearly see there are many factors that are used to seek and assist with preventing and turn uping marks of OP every bit early as possible. The cardinal component that is noticed here is the last measure before the induction of anti OP therapy and that is the publicity of physical activity ( in peculiar weight bearing exercisings ) and its function in forestalling OP.

Fig 2. Suggested program of covering with OP ( Ebeling, 2008 )

Encouraging physical activity at all ages is a top precedence to forestall OP ( Chan et al, 2003 ) . However even though the benefits of exercising are noted in patients with OP, its consequence on whole bone strength has remained inconclusive ( Nikander et al, 2010 ) . The effects of exercising on whole bone strength will now be looked at in two surveies crossing different age classs as shown in the tabular array below ( Table 1 ) . As is clearly apparent from the consequences below, exercising is a feasible startegy in handling OP nevertheless, a cardinal point from both these surveies is that attachment is of import to see consequences and this was shown peculiarly in Vainionpaa et Al ( 2006 ) with greater consequences being seen in the topics who attended over 66 Sessionss during the 12months when compared with those who completed less than 20 sessions.Overall there are many types of OP and many different aetilogical factors doing it. Each has its ain intervention and changing grades of badness nevertheless a batch of these causing factors are unheard of e.g exessive intoxicant ingestion and hence in future it is recommended that the hazard factors of OP be better communiated to the populace to forestall this “ soundless ” disease ( Karinkanta, 2007 ) .




Site measured

Technique used


Macdonald et Al, ( 2008 )

School Children

( 9-11 )


16month intercession

Intervention Group= 2x 40 minPE categories with 15 mins excess physical activity each twenty-four hours

Control Group= 2 x 40min PE categories

Femoral Neck ( Strength, geometry, BMC )

Proximal thighbone, lumbar spinal column and entire organic structure BMC

Hip construction analysis


Lumbar spinal column ( 2.7 % ) , entire organic structure ( 1.7 % ) and femoral cervix BMC ( 3.5 % ) increased in the intercession group.

Vanionpaa et Al, ( 2006 )



12month intercession

Intervention group= 3x60min exercise categories and 10mins day-to-day ( hops and stairss )

Control Group=

Normal day-to-day activity

Intensity of impact lading during session within 5 scopes ( 0.3-1g up to 5.4-9.2g )

Bone geometry, mid thighbone, proximal shinbone, distal shinbone

Acceleromometer based organic structure motion proctor

Spiral Quantative computed topography scanner

Number and strength of impacts were the most important forecasters of alteration in bone geometry favoring those who were most active and besides highest addition was found in the mid femur country with a 0.2 % addition in bone perimeter

Table 1. Two surveies foregrounding the benefit of increased exercising degree on bone strength.