Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 19–25 | Cite as

Factors influencing short-term precision of dual X-ray bone absorptiometry (DXA) of spine and femur

  • K. Engelke
  • C. C. Glüer
  • H. K. Genant
Clinical Investigations

Abstract

In this study we analyzed the effect of variations in bone area size, baseline soft tissue composition represented by the R-value, and bone region of interest positioning on the precision in vivo of bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC) as measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The posterior-anterior (PA) spine, decubitus latcral, and femur modes were evaluated. Eleven (PA-spine), 9 (dec-lat), and 14 (femur) postmenopausal women were scanned twice on a Norland XR-26 with repositioning to determine short-term precision of BMD, BMC, AREA, and the R-value. Phantom precisions (CV[%] of 10 consecutive scans) for BMD (BMC) were PA spine: 0.66% (0.57%), neck: 1.1% (1.2%), and trochanter: 0.55% (1.0%). Precisions in vivo (CV[%]; two consecutive scans averaged over all patients) were PA spine: 0.9% (1.0%), dec-lat: 7.1% (18%), neck: 1.3% (1.9%), and trochanter: 2.5% (4.9%). BMD precision could be fully explained by BMC and AREA variations. However, BMC alone was a particularly poor predictor of BMD in the dec-lat (r2=0.05) and in the neck (r2=0.13) modes. AREA was a strong predictor for BMC precision explaining between 41% and 88% of the BMC changes. Changes in soft tissue composition contributed significantly in explaining the BMC changes in the dec-lat projection. A higher dependence of BMC changes on AREA changes resulted in a larger difference between BMC and BMD precision. Thus, particularly in the femur and in the decubitus lateral modes, the use of BMD is advantageous compared with BMC.

Key words

DXA In vivo Precision Soft tissue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sorensen JA (1991) Relationship between patient exposure and measurement precision in dual photon absorptiometry of the spine. Phys Med Biol 36:169–176Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazess R, Chesnut CH III, McClung M, Genant HK (1992) Enhanced precision with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 51:14–17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson CR, Fogelman I, Blake GM, Rodin A (1991) The effect of positioning on dual energy x-ray bone densitometry of the proximal femur. Bone Miner 13:69–76Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lilley J, Walters BG, Heath DA, Drolc Z (1991) In vivo and in vitro precision of bone density measured by dual-energy x-ray absorption. Osteoporosis Int 1:141–146Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehmann LA, Alvarez RE, Macovski A, Brody WR (1981) Generalized image combinations in dual-kVp-digital radiography. Med Phys 8:659–667Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alvarez RE, Macovski A (1976) Energy-selective reconstructions in x-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol 21: 733–744Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmitz S, Steiger P, Melnikoff S, Lang P, Genant HK (1990) Lateral x-ray dual absorptiometry of the spine: estimating softtissue inhomogeneity with CT. In: Proceedings of 76th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Radiology, p 172Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rupich RC, Griffin MG, Pacifici R, Avioli LV, Susman N (1992) Lateral dual-energy radiography: artifact error from rib and pelvic bone. J Bone Miner Res 7:97–101Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lai KC, Goodsitt MM, Murano R, Chesnut CH III (1992) A comparison of two dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry systems for spinal bone mineral measurement. Calcif Tissue Int 50:203–208Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly TL, Slovik DM, Neer RM (1989) Calibration and standardization of bone mineral densitometers. J Bone Miner Res 4(5):663–669Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cullum ID, Ell PJ, Ryder JP (1989) X-ray dual photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone density. Br J Radiol 62:587–592Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK (1991) Longitudinal precision of dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. J Bone Miner Res 6:191–197Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rencken ML, Murano R, Drinkwater L, Chesnut CH (1991) In vitro comparability of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone densitometers. Calcif Tissue Int 48:245–248Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen MA, Hassager C, Overgaard K, Merslew U, Riis BJ, Christiansen C (1990) Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: a precise method of measuring bone mineral density in the lumbar spine. J Nucl Med 0:00–00Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pouilles J-M, Tremollieres F, Todorovsky N, Ribot C (1991) Precision and sensitivity of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 6:997–1002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slosman DO, Rizzoli R, Buchs B, Piana F, Donath A, Bonjour J-P (1990) Comparative study of the performances of x-ray and gadolinium 153 bone densitometers at the level of the spine, femoral neck and femoral shaft. Eur J Nucl Med 17:3–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duboeuf F, Braillon P, Chapuy MC, Haond P, Hardouin C, Meary MF, Delas PD, Meunier PJ (1991) Bone mineral density of the hip measured with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in normal elderly women and in patients with hip fracture. Osteoporosis Int 242–249Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glüer CC, Steiger P, Selvidge R, Elliesen-Kliefoth K, Hayashi C, Genant HK (1990) Comparative assessment of dual-photon-absorptiometry and dual-energy-radiography. Radiology 174: 223–228Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lees B, Stevenson JC (1992) An evaluation of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 2:146–152Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson J, Dawson-Hughes B (1991) Precision and stability of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 49:174–178Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haddaway MJ, Davie MWJ, McCall IW (1992) Bone mineral density in healthy normal women and reproducibility of measurements in spine and hip using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 65:213–217Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sievänen H, Oja P, Vuori I (1992) Precision of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in determining bone mineral density and content of various skeletal sites. J Nucl Med 33:1137–1142Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larnach TA, Boyd SJ, Smart RC, Butler SP, Rohl PG, Diamond TH (1992) Reproducibility of lateral spine scans using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 51:255–258Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reid IR, Evans MC, Stapleton J (1992) Lateral spine densitiometry is a more sensitive indicator of glucocorticoid-induced bone loss. J Bone Miner Res 7:1221–1225Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slosman DO, Rissoli R, Donath A, Bonjour J-P (1990) Vertebral bone mineral density measured laterally by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 1:23–29Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Souza A, Nakamura T, Shiraki M, Stergiopoulos K, Ouchi Y, Orimo H (1990) Measurement of vertebral body using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in lateral projection. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K (eds) Proceedings of Osteoporosis. Copenhagen, Denmark, Osteopress ApS, pp 640–642Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valkema R, Verheij LF, Blockland JAK, Zwindermann AH, Bijvoet OLM, Papapoulos SE, Pauwels EKJ (1990) Limited precision of lumbar spine dual photon absorptiometry by variations in the soft-tissue background. J Nucl Med 31:1774–1781Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hangartner TN, Johnston CC (1990) Influence of fat on bone measurements with dual-energy absorptiometry. Bone Miner 9:71–81Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sorenson JA (1990) Effects on nonmineral tissues on measurement of bone mineral content by dual-photon absorptiometry. Med Phys 17:905–912Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Farrell TJ, Webber CE (1989) The error due to fat inhomogeneity in lumbar spine bone mineral measurements. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 10:57–64Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tothill P, Pye DW (1991) Errors in DXA of spine due to nonuniform fat distribution. Osteoporosis Int 1:199Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Engelke
    • 1
  • C. C. Glüer
    • 1
  • H. K. Genant
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California at San Francisco, Osteoporosis Research GroupSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations