Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 192–195 | Cite as

Evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone mineral measurement—comparison of a single-beam and fan-beam design: The effect of osteophytic calcification on spine bone mineral density

  • H. Franck
  • M. Munz
  • M. Scherrer
Clinical Investigations


Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using a single-beam (SB) design is a well-established procedure for measuring bone mineral area density (BMD). Recently, fan beam (FB) techniques have become available to measure BMD. We evaluated the QDR1000 and QDR2000 densitometers with regard to precision and cross-compared values using single beam (SB) and FB techniques. To study the effect of osteoarthritic changes on bone measurement (BMC in g) and bone mineral area density (BMD in g/cm2), both parameters were measured in patients with and without osteophytic calcifications (OC) of the lumbar spine. Precision errors for BMD in vitro over 1 and 6 months using the QDR2000 were 0.4% and 0.6% for SB and 0.5% and 0.7% for the three FB modes. For QDR1000 only SB is available. Using this scan mode, the BMD difference (δ=0.1%) in vitro between QDR1000 and QDR2000 was not significant. The short-term (same day) reproducibility of BMD in vivo was 0.85% for SB mode and 1.1% for FB scan mode (n=33). The midterm (1 month) precision errors were 0.9% for SB and 1.5% for FB (n=11). The spine BMD of 751 patients from our outpatient clinic and department of rheumatology was 1.7% lower with FB than with SB (0.878±0.137 versus 0.888±0.146 g/cm2). Lower (1.8%) BMD values were also found in the hip with FB compared to SB (0.805±0.111 versus 0.821±0.111 g/cm2). There was a highly significant (P<0.00001) correlation between SB and FB on the spine (r =0.99) and hip (r=0.98) using the QDR2000. Correlations found QDR1000 and QDR2000 were lower on the spine (r=0.97) hip (r=0.93). In contrast to hip BMD, spine BMD was significantly higher in women (n=78) with OC (FB: 0.894±0.134 g/cm2, SB: 0.900±0.140 g/cm2) than in normals (n=148) (FB: 0.844±0.130 g/cm2, SB: 0.865±0.140 mals (n=148) (FB: 0.844±0.130 g/cm2, SB: 0.865±0.140 g/cm2) (P<0.05). The FB mode provides reproducible data in vitro and in vivo, though not as precise as SB. FB results in vivo are 1–2% lower than FB results, even with identical results in vitro. Women with OC present with higher BMD values in spine scans than normals.

Key words

Osteophytic calcifications DXA Single beam Fan beam 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gärdsell P, Johnell O, Nilsonn BE (1991) The predictive value of bone loss for fragility fractures in women: a longitudinal study over 15 years. Calcif Tissue Int 49:90–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazess RB, Collick B, Trempe J, Barden II, Hanson J (1989) Performance evaluation of dual energy X-ray bone densitometer. Calcif Tissue Int 44:228–232Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotfredsen A, Rijs BJ, Christiansen C, Rodbro P (1990) Does a single local absorptiometric bone measurement indicate the overall skeletal status? Implications for osteoporosis and osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Rheumatol 9(2):193–203Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fogelmann I (1991) rDEXA evaluation of treatment for osteoporosis. Oral presentations at 8th International Workshop on Bone Densitometry, Bad Reichenhall, Germany (Densitometry, Osteoporosis, Therapy)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fukunaga M, Tomomitsu T, Ono S, Otsuka N, Nagai K, Morita K, Imai H, Miyake M, Katagiri M (1992) Determination of vertebral bone mineral density with new dual energy x-ray absorptiometry using multiple detectors: fundamental studies. Radiation Med 10(1):39–43Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slosman DO, Rissoli R, Donath A, Bonjour JP (1990) Vertebral bone mineral density measured laterally by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 1:23–29Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK, Mann T (1989) The impact of osteophytic and vascular calcification on vertebral mineral density measurements in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 70:1202–1207Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ito M, Hayashi K, Yamada M, Uetani M, Nakamura T (1993) Relationship of osteophytes to bone mineral density and spinal fracture in men. Radiology 189(2):497–502Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ito M, Hayashi K, Uetani M, Kawahara Y, Ohki M, Yamada M, Kitamori H, Noguchi M (1993) Bone mineral and other bone components in vertebrae evaluated by QCT and MRI. Skeletal Radiol 22(2):109–113Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faulkner KG, Gluer CC, Estilo M, Genant HK (1993) Crosscalibration of DXA equipment: upgrading from a Hologic QDR1000/W to a QDR2000. Calcif Tissue Int 52(2):79–84Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis MK, Blake GM, Fogelman I (1994) Patient dose in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 4:11–15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harper KD, Lobaugh B, King ST, Drezner MK (1992) Upgrading dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanners: Do new models provide equivalent results? J Bone Miner Res 7 (suppl 1)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blake GM, Parker JC, Buxton FM, Fogelman I (1993) Dual X-ray absorptiometry: a comparison between fan beam and pencil beam scans. Br J Radiol 66(790):902–906Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finkelstein J, Mitlak B, Slovik D, Neer R (1992) A novel and improved method for calibrating dual energy x-ray densitometers. J Bone Miner Res 7 (suppl 1)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uebelhart D, Duboeuf F, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD (1990) Lateral dual-photon absorptiometry: a new technique to measure the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 5:5Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devogelaer JP, Baudoux C, Nagant de Deuxchaisnes C (1992) Reproducibility of BMD measurements on the Hologic QDR2000. In: Ring (ed) 3rd Bath Conference on Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Measurements Bath, UK (Hologic, Precision, Performance, DXA)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawson-Hughes B, Dallal GE (1990) Effect of radiographic abnormalities on rate of bone loss from the spine. Calcif Tissue Int 46:280Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Vogel JM (1987) Magnitude of artifact errors in spine dual photon absorptiometry measurements. In: Christiansen C, Johansen JS, Rijs BJ (eds) Osteoporosis. Osteopress, Copenhagen, 389–391Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Franck
    • 1
  • M. Munz
    • 1
  • M. Scherrer
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinic MayenbadBad WaldseeGermany

Personalised recommendations