Comparison of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Dual Photon Absorptiometry for Bone Mineral Measurements of the Lumbar Spine

1988 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1075-1084 ◽  
Author(s):  
HEINZ W. WAHNER ◽  
WILLIAM L. DUNN ◽  
MANUEL L. BROWN ◽  
RICHARD L. MORIN ◽  
B. LAWRENCE RIGGS
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Dual Photon Absorptiometry ◽  
Photon Absorptiometry ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Bone Mineral Measurements

Vertebral Bone Mineral Measurement Using Dual Photon Absorptiometry and Computed Tomography

1988 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Eriksson ◽  
B. Isberg ◽  
U. Lindgren
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Dual Photon Absorptiometry ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Photon Absorptiometry ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Posterior Elements

The lumbar spine of 14 cadavers was studied both by 153Gd dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) at 96 and 125 kVp. The intact spine and the individual vertebrae were analyzed. After these measurements the ash content of the vertebral body, the posterior elements, and the transverse processes was determined. The fat content of the vertebral body as well as its volume was also measured. With DPA, the bone mineral content (BMC) determined in situ as well as on excised spine specimens correlated highly with the amount of total vertebral ash (r>0.92, SEE<3.2 g). The bone mineral density (BMD, area density) of 3 lumbar vertebrae correlated accurately with the mean ash density of the vertebral body (r>0.81, SEE<0.015 g/cm3). The so-called corpus density and central density determinations were less accurate. No difference in accuracy was found between measurements when using 3 mm and 4.5 mm step intervals. Variations in the distribution of mineral between the vertebral body and the posterior elements contribute to the error in predicting vertebral body mineral with DPA. QCT gave a smaller error when a cylindric portion of the vertebral body with a 20 mm diameter was measured compared with one with a 9 mm diameter, when the dual energy technique was used (p<0.01). With dual energy QCT a correlation was found between a center segment of 3 vertebrae in the lumbar spine and the mean ash density of the vertebral body of r=0.92 (SEE=0.010 g/cm3). Single energy QCT was insignificantly less accurate than dual energy QCT. Only small differences were found between vertebrae with high fat density of the vertebral body when single or dual QCT was used. QCT was more accurate than DPA in the prediction of the mineral density of individual vertebral bodies (p<0.05) but no difference was found when the average values for the lumbar spine were calculated.

scholarly journals Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Saarelainen ◽  
M. Hakulinen ◽  
T. Rikkonen ◽  
H. Kröger ◽  
M. Tuppurainen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Linear Correction ◽  
Bone Mineral Measurements ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Cross Calibration

In long-term prospective studies, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices need to be inevitably changed. It is essential to assess whether systematic differences will exist between measurements with the new and old device. A group of female volunteers (21–72 years) underwent anteroposterior lumbar spine L2–L4 (n=72), proximal femur (n=72), and total body (n=62) measurements with the Prodigy and the iDXA scanners at the same visit. The bone mineral density (BMD) measurements with these two scanners showed a high linear association at all tested sites (r=0.962–0.995;p<0.0001). The average iDXA BMD values were 1.5%, 0.5%, and 0.9% higher than those of Prodigy for lumbar spine (L2–L4) (p<0.0001), femoral neck (p=0.048), and total hip (p<0.0001), respectively. Total body BMD values measured with the iDXA were −1.3% lower (p<0.0001) than those measured with the Prodigy. For total body, lumbar spine, and femoral neck, the BMD differences as measured with these two devices were independent of subject height and weight. Linear correction equations were developed to ensure comparability of BMD measurements obtained with both DXA scanners. Importantly, use of equations from previous studies would have increased the discrepancy between these particular DXA scanners, especially at hip and at spine.

scholarly journals POS0045 LEAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN BONE DENSITOMETRY IN PATIENTS WITH OBESITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 227.2-228
Author(s):  
D. Claire ◽  
M. Geoffroy ◽  
L. Kanagaratnam ◽  
C. Isabelle ◽  
A. Hittinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
General Population ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Bone Densitometry ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Least Significant Change ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Significant Change

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document