Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 94–99 | Cite as

Ultrasound measurements on the os calcis in a prospective multicenter study

  • D. Hans
  • A. M. Schott
  • M. C. Chapuy
  • M. Benamar
  • P. D. Kotzki
  • C. Cormier
  • J. M. Pouilles
  • P. J. Meunier
Clinical Investigations


Ultrasonic assessment is a new approach to assess both quality and density. Two ultrasonic parameters are measured on the os calcis: the attenuation or broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and the velocity or speed of sound (SOS). The interunit variations in vitro and in vivo of an ultrasound instrument, the Lunar AchillesR system, used in a French multicenter study named EPIDOS, were calculated and the stability of these intruments over a 12-month period was evaluated. A third parameter called “stiffness index”, calculated from the SOS and BUA, was also used in this study. The average CV in vitro for the BUA and SOS was 0.92% and 0.12%, respectively, and the average CV in vivo for the BUA, the SOS, and the stiffness index was 1.83%, 0.23%, and 1.9%, respectively. The interunit (or inter-machines) variations were calculated by a one-way analysis of variance. We detected small but significant measurement differences among centers on a phantom for both SOS (maximum significant difference 0.4%) and stiffness (maximum significant difference 3.5%) but not for BUA. Similar diffrences were found in vivo. The precision over 12 months of the interunit variations in vitro was evaluated by measuring a single phantom traveling from one center to another several times. The range of the CV for the BUA (1.54–0.51%), for the SOS (0.25–0.14%), and for the stiffness index (2.26–1.10%) are explained in part by technical failures. The variation among the five Achilles was estimated by the combined CV which was 1.42% for the BUA, 0.32% for the SOS, and 2.33% for the stiffness index. In conclusion, our findings indicate that equipment from one manufacturer appears to be consistent between machines for the BUA, but not completely for the SOS. The results for this stiffness index are necessarily influenced by both SOS and BUA. The shortterm and long-term interunit precision is good, both in vitro and in vivo. Such results provide increased confidence in multicenter clinical trials where ultrasonic data are pooled.

Key words

Broadband ultrasound attenuation Speed-of-sound Stiffness index Interunit precision 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW (1984) The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 13:89–91Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hans D, Schott AM, Meunier PJ (1993) Ultrasound assessment of bone: a review, Eur J Med 2(3):157–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaufman JJ, Einhorn TA (1993) Perspective: ultrasound assessment of bone. J Bone Minor Res 8:517–525Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schott AM, Hans D, Sornay-Rendu E, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ (1993) Ultrasound measurements on os calcis: precision and age-related changes in a normal female population. Osteoporosis Int 3:249–254Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mautalen C, Gonzales D, Circosta AM (1993) Ultrasonic assessment of bone in normal and Osteoporotic women. 4th Int Symp on Osteoporosis, Hong-KongGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blake GM (1993) Comparative performance of commercial ultrasound scanners: ultrasonic assessment of bone III: Stratford upon Avon.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baran DT, Kelly AM, Karellas A, Gionet M et al. (1988) Ultrasound attenuation of the os calcis in women with osteoporosis and hip fracture. Calcif Tissue Int 43:138–142Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lees B, Stevenson JC (1993) Preliminary evaluation of new ultrasound bone densitometer. Calcif Tissue Int 53:149–152Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massie A, Reid DM, Porter RW (1993) Screening for osteoporosis: comparison between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and broadband ultrasound attenuation in 1000 perimenopausal women. Osteoporosis Int 3:107–110Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herd RJM, Ramalingam T, Miller CG, Ryan PJ, Fogelman I (1993). Measurement of postmenopausal bone loss with a new contact ultrasound system. Calcif Tissue Int 53:153–157Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young H, Howey S, Purdie DW (1993) Broadband ultrasound attenuation compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in screening for postmenopausal low bone density. Osteoporosis Int 3:160–164Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK, Nafarelin/Bone Study Group (1991) Longitudinal precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. J Bone Miner Res 6, 2:191–197Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rencken ML, Murano R, Drinkwater BL, Chesnut III CH (1991) In vitro comparability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) bone densitometers. Calcif Tissue Int 48:245–248Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trevisan C, Gandolini GG, Sibilla P, Penotti M, Caraceni MP, Ortolanie S (1992) Bone mass measurement by DXA: influence of analysis procedures and interunit variation. J Bone Miner Res 7,12:1373–1381Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK, Biddle J (1993) Precision of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: development of quality control rules and their application in longitudinal studies. J Bone Miner Res 8,6: 693–699Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazess RB, Hanson JA, Bonnick SL (1991) Ultrasound measurement of the os calcis. Br Bone Tooth SocGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wells PNT (1977) Biomechanical ultrasonics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kotzki PO, Buyck D, Hans D, et al. (1994) Influence of fat on ultrasound measurements of the Os calcis. Calcif Tissue Int 54:91–95Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damilakis JE, Dretakis E, Gourtsoyiannis NC (1992) Ultrasound attenuation of the calcaneus in the female population: normative data. Calcif Tissue Int 51:180–183Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Truscott JG, Simpson M, Stewart SP, et al. (1992) Bone ultrasonic attenuation in women: reproducibility, normal variation and comparison with absorptiometry. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1:29–36Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandenburger G, Waud K, Baran D (1992) Reproducibility of uncorrected velocity of sound does not indicate true precision. J Bone Miner Res 7 (suppl):368Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hans
    • 1
  • A. M. Schott
    • 1
  • M. C. Chapuy
    • 1
  • M. Benamar
    • 2
  • P. D. Kotzki
    • 3
  • C. Cormier
    • 4
  • J. M. Pouilles
    • 5
  • P. J. Meunier
    • 1
  1. 1.INSERM Unit 234 Epidemiology SectionPavillon F. Hôpital Edouard HerriotLyon Cedex 03France
  2. 2.EPIDOS CenterAmiens
  3. 3.EPIDOS CenterMontpellier
  4. 4.EPIDOS CenterParis
  5. 5.EPIDOS CenterToulouse

Personalised recommendations