摘要
目的对2002年和2009年北京市同龄初中生的骨量进行比较,为促进我国儿童青少年骨骼健康提供基础数据。方法分别在2002年和2009年随机抽取北京市郊区12~14岁初中生323名和307名,采用双能量X线骨密度测量仪(DEXA)测量全身(躯干、上肢、下肢)和腰椎的骨矿物含量(BMC)和骨矿物密度(BMD)及体成分。结果 2009年13岁男生躯干BMD低于2002年同龄组,14岁男生下肢BMD高于2002年同龄组;2009和2002年12~14岁男生身高、体重、体成分及余部位骨量差异均无统计学意义。2009年12岁女生上肢BMC和BMD高于2002年同龄组,13岁女生躯干BMD、下肢BMC及14岁女生全身、下肢的BMC和BMD及腰椎、躯干的BMD低于2002年同龄组;2009年12岁女生的瘦体重高于2002年同龄组,14岁女生的身高、体重低于2002年的同龄组,其余指标差异无统计学意义。结论北京市郊区2002与2009年12~14岁男生骨量差异不大,女生差异明显。
Objective To compare the bone mass of adolescents in 2002 and 2009. Methods A total of 323 and 307 healthy adolescents ( aged 12 - 14) were recruited randomly from the suburb of Beijing in 2002 and 2009 respectively. Bone mass of total body ( including trunk, upper limbs and lower limbs) and lumbar were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Results The trunk BMD of boys aged 13 in 2009 were lower than that of boys at the same age in 2002, while the lower limbs BMD of boys aged 14 y in 2009 was higher than their counterparts in 2002. The height, weight, body composition, and bone mass at other sites of boys aged 12 - 14 in 2009 were not significantly different from those of their counterparts in 2002. The upper limbs BMC and BMD of girls aged 12 in 2009 were higher than those of girls at the same age in 2002. The trunk BMD and lower limbs BMC of girls aged 13 and the total body, lower limbs BMC and BMD, and lumber, trunk BMD of girls aged 14 in 2009 were lower than their counterparts in 2002, respectively. The lean body mass of girls aged 12 in 2009 were higher than their counterparts in 2002, and the height, weight of girls aged 14 in 2009 were lower than their counterparts in 2002. The other indices were not different between different years. Conclusion There is little difference in bone mass of boys aged 12 - 14 between 2009 and 2002, while significant difference in bone mass is found in girls between 2002 and 2009.
出处
《中国学校卫生》
CAS
北大核心
2011年第6期684-686,共3页
Chinese Journal of School Health
基金
国家科技支撑计划课题(2008BAI58B02)
关键词
骨
生长和发育
学生
对比研究
Bones
Growth and development
Students
Comparative study