Endocrine Abstracts

Background: Body composition of females with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) varies considerably. The literature lacks of skeleton size description in women with PCOS. Objective of the present study was to investigate skeleton robustness in PCOS women.

Material and methods: Hundred and one PCOS women (by androgen excess society criteria, mean age 26.85±3.91 years) and 81 healthy control women (mean age 27.95±3.65 years) were investigated in Vilnius city in 2009–2011. Height, body mass, seven longitudinal and ten transversal skeletal parameters were measured using standard anthropometric methods. 11 derivative indices including body mass index (BMI), frame index (FI), metric index (MI) and chest-to-pelvis ratio (ChPR) were calculated. Gonadotropins and androgens tests were carried out.

Results: Height did not differ between PCOS and controls. BMI of PCOS women was significantly higher compared to controls. PCOS women had longer trunk by 2.74 cm due to higher pelvis, 2.05 cm shorter arms and 1.90 cm shorter legs, wider shoulders (by 2.16 cm), chest (by 3.3 cm) and pelvis (by 1.81 cm), higher FI, MI and ChPR (P<0.01). After the adjustment for BMI women with PCOS presented 0.67 cm wider chest, but 0.98 cm narrower pelvis, higher FI, MI and ChPR than healthy women (P<0.05). 72.3% of women with PCOS had large frame size. 44.6% of PCOS women had picnomorphic somatotype, whereas 85.2% of the controls had leptomorphic somatotype. The study showed an inverse correlation between transversal skeletal measurements and luteinizing hormone, positive correlation between transversal skeletal measurements, FI, MI and free androgen index in women with PCOS. Area under ROC curve discriminating PCOS for FI was 0.830.

Conclusions: Women with PCOS have larger frame size, longer trunk, higher and narrower pelvis, shorter extremities in comparison to healthy women. Skeletal parameters may aid the identification of PCOS in women; frame index demonstrates the best PCOS predictive ability.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.