论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨２型糖尿病患者骨密度（ＢＭＤ）改变及其机制。方法测定９３例２型糖尿病患者及９０例年龄、体重指数相匹配的健康对照者股骨近端（Ｎｅｃｋ、Ｔｒｏｃｈ、Ｗａｒｄ三角）及正位腰椎（Ｌ２Ｌ４）ＢＭＤ，血钙（Ｃａ）、磷（Ｐ）、甲状旁腺激素（ＰＴＨ）、尿ＣｒｏｓｓＬａｐ／Ｃｒ浓度。结果２型糖尿病患者股骨近端Ｎｅｃｋ、Ｔｒｏｃｈ、Ｗａｒｄ三角、Ｌ４、Ｌ２Ｌ４骨密度（ＢＭＤ）比对照组高；Ｌ２低于对照组。上述各部位（除外Ｌ２）ＢＭＤ糖尿病５年以下组（ＤＭＡ）组高于对照组，糖尿病５年及以上组（ＤＭＢ）组低于ＤＭＡ组，ＤＭＢ组Ｎｅｃｋ、Ｔｒｏｃｈ、Ｌ３、Ｌ４、Ｌ２Ｌ４部位ＢＭＤ低于对照组。Ｌ２部位ＢＭＤ：在ＤＭＡ组低于对照组，而在ＤＭＢ组高于ＤＭＡ组。将病程与ＢＭＤ进行相关性分析后显示：病程与股骨近端Ｎｅｃｋ、Ｗａｒｄ三角区ＢＭＤ呈显著负相关（Ｐ＜０．０５）。２型糖尿病组血Ｃａ、Ｐ浓度与对照组无显著差异；血骨钙素（ＢＧＰ）浓度显著低于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０５）；血ＰＴＨ浓度显著高于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０５）；尿Ｃｒｏｓｓｌａｐｓ／Ｃｒ比对照组高１４％，但差异无显著意义（Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论２型糖尿病患者各部位ＢＭ?
Objective To investigate the changes of bone mineral density (BMD) and its mechanism in type 2 diabetic patients. Methods Ninety-three patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 90 healthy subjects with age and BMI were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into three groups: neck (Troch, Ward triangle), BMD of L2-L4, calcium, (P), parathyroid hormone (PTH), urine CrossLap / Cr concentration. Results In patients with type 2 diabetes, the proximal femur Neck, Troch, Ward triangle, L4, L2-L4 BMD were higher than those in the control group; L2 was lower than that in the control group. The above parts (Except L2) BMD diabetes less than 5 years group (DM A) group was higher than the control group, diabetes 5 years and above group (DM B) group was lower than DM A group, DM B group Neck, Troch , L3, L4, L2-L4 BMD lower than the control group. L2 part of the BMD: in DM A group than in the control group, while in DM B group was higher than DM A group. Correlation analysis of the course of disease and BMD showed that there was a significant negative correlation (P <0.05) between the course of disease and the BMD of Neck and Ward trigone of proximal femur. There was no significant difference between the two groups in blood Ca, P concentration and control group. The concentration of BGP was significantly lower than that of control group (P <0.05). The blood PTH concentration was significantly higher than that of control group (P <0. 05). Urinary Crosslaps / Cr was 14% higher than the control group, but the difference was not significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion All patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus BM?