Bone Densitometry and Osteoporosis at the Hand and Wrist

Author(s):  
Giuseppe Guglielmi ◽  
Mario Cammisa ◽  
Antonio De Serio
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 108-118
Author(s):  
A. V. Petraikin ◽  
A. K. Smorchkova ◽  
N. D. Kudryavtsev ◽  
K. A. Sergunova ◽  
Z. R. Artyukova ◽  
...  

Rationale. Quantitative CT (QCT) bone densitometry with asynchronous calibration not require a phantom during the scan procedure. Based on calibration data it converts X-ray density in HU to bone mineral density (BMD). Given the large number of CT studies performed on patients at risk of osteoporosis, there is a need for a hands-on method capable of assessing BMD in a short period of time without tailored software or protocols.Goal. To develop a method for QCT bone densitometry using an PHK (PHantom Kalium), to compare the volume BMD measurements with the QCT data with asynchronous calibration provided by software from a reputable developer.Methods. The studies were performed at 64-slice CT unit with body scanning parameters. The BMD was measured using two techniques: 1) QCT with asynchronous calibration using software from a reputable developer; 2) QCT using a PHK phantom (QCT-PHK). For convert the HU to BMD values, we scanned the PHK phantom and calculate correction factor. Phantom contains “vertebrae” filled with potassium hydrogen phosphate in different concentrations. In both methods, the BMD values measured for LI–II, and sometimes for ThXII, LIII.Results. The study enrolled 65 subjects (11 male and 54 female patients); median age 69.0 years. A comparison of the vertebrae BMD measured by QCT and QCT-PHK revealed a significant linear Pearson correlation r = 0.977 (p < 0.05). The Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated a lack of relationship between the difference in measurements and the average BMD and a systematic BMD; bias of +4.50 mg/ml in QCT vs. QCT-PHK. Differences in the division into groups osteoporosis / osteopenia / norm according to the ACR criteria for the two methods were not significant.Conclusion. The developed asynchronous QCT-PHK method measure BMD comparable to the widely used QCT with asynchronous calibration. This method can be used for opportunistic screening for osteoporosis.


Radiology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 275 (1) ◽  
pp. 310-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Morris ◽  
Lang Yang ◽  
Miguel A. Martín-Fernández ◽  
Jose M. Pozo ◽  
Alejandro F. Frangi ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 517-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
B E C Nordin ◽  
B E C Nordin
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 227.2-228
Author(s):  
D. Claire ◽  
M. Geoffroy ◽  
L. Kanagaratnam ◽  
C. Isabelle ◽  
A. Hittinger ◽  
...  

Background:Dual energy X-ray absoprtiometry is the reference method to mesure bone mineral density (1). Loss of bone mineral density is significant if it exceeds the least significant change. The threshold value used in general population is 0,03 g/cm2 (2). Patients with obesity are known for having a higher bone mineral density due to metabolism and physiopathology characteristics (3,4).Objectives:The aim of our study was to determine the least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity.Methods:We conducted an interventionnal study in 120 patients with obesity who performed a bone densitometry. We measured twice the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck and the total hip in the same time (5,6). We determined the least significant change in bone densitometry from each pair of measurements, using the Bland and Altman method. We also determined the least significant change in bone densitometry according to each stage of obesity.Results:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is 0,046g/cm2 at the lumbar spine, 0.069 g/cm2 at the femoral neck and 0.06 g/cm2 at the total hip.Conclusion:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is higher than in general population. These results may improve DXA interpretation in this specific population, and may personnalize their medical care.References:[1]Lees B, Stevenson JC. An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int. mai 1992;2(3):146-52.[2]Briot K, Roux C, Thomas T, Blain H, Buchon D, Chapurlat R, et al. Actualisation 2018 des recommandations françaises du traitement de l’ostéoporose post-ménopausique. Rev Rhum. oct 2018;85(5):428-40.[3]Shapses SA, Pop LC, Wang Y. Obesity is a concern for bone health with aging. Nutr Res N Y N. mars 2017;39:1-13.[4]Savvidis C, Tournis S, Dede AD. Obesity and bone metabolism. Hormones. juin 2018;17(2):205-17.[5]Roux C, Garnero P, Thomas T, Sabatier J-P, Orcel P, Audran M, et al. Recommendations for monitoring antiresorptive therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. janv 2005;72(1):26-31.[6]Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C. Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res. août 1999;14(8):1449-56.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


Public Health ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.A.C. Coupland ◽  
I. Packham ◽  
A.R. Lyons ◽  
C.E.D. Chilvers ◽  
D.J. Hosking

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document