Advertisement

Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 461–465 | Cite as

Automated computerized radiogrammetry of the second metacarpal and its correlation with absorptiometry of the forearm and spine

  • T. Derisquebourg
  • P. Dubois
  • J. P. Devogelaer
  • E. Meys
  • B. Duquesnoy
  • C. Nagant de Deuxchaisnes
  • B. Delcambre
  • X. Marchandise
Clinical Investigations

Abstract

The value of a new computerized radiogrammetric method of assessment of the second metacarpal has been evaluated, and its results have been compared with those of single (SPA) and dual photon absorptiometry measurements (forearm and spine) in 74 and 79 postmenopausal women, respectively. Standard hand X-rays were digitized by a video-camera connected to a microcomputer. The combined cortical thickness (CCT) was automatically calculated in a zone of 10 mm around the midpart of the second metacarpal. The intra- and interobserver coefficients of variation were close to 1%. The correlation between CCT and SPA of the proximal and midforearm (with a significant amount of cortical bone) was satisfactory (r=0.62 and 0.50, respectively; P<0.001). The correlation between CCT and osteodensitometry of sites comprising more trabecular bone were not so good (0.50 for lumbar and 0.44 for distal forearm bone mineral density, respectively), but still significant (P<0.001). Radiogrammetry proved unaffected by a change of X-ray apparatus, as measurements of 48 metacarpals radiographed by two different kinds of X-ray apparatus were not significantly different. Radiogrammetry is by no means the best method to evaluate bone mass. Its automation did not improve the correlation with osteodensitometric values. Radiogrammetry is still of interest in mass screening, particularly when other more expensive techniques such as osteodensitometric methods of bone mass measurement are not readily available. Its automation makes it simpler, faster, and more precise, rendering its use easier on a larger scale.

Key words

Radiogrammetry Absorptiometry Bone mass measurements 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett E, Nordin BEC (1960) The radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Clin Radiol 11:166–174Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meema HE, Meema S (1981) Radiogrammetry, In: Cohn S (ed) Noninvasive measurements of bone mass and their clinical applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 5–50Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan DB (1973) The metacarpal bone: a comparison of the various indices for the assessment of the amount of bone and for the detection of loss of bone. Clin Radiol 24:77–82Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloom RA, Pogrund H, Libson E (1983) Radiogrammetry of the metacarpal: a critical reappraisal. Skeletal Radiol 10:5–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazess RB (1987) Bone density in diagnosis of osteoporosis: thresholds and breakpoints. Calcif Tissue Int 41:117–118Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wasnich RD (1991) Bone mass measurements in diagnosis and assessment of therapy. Am J Med 91:54S-60SGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazess RB (1981) Noninvasive measurement of local bone in osteoporosis. In: DeLuca H (ed) Osteoporosis: recent advances in treatment and pathogensis. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 25–37Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alhava EM (1991) Bone density measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 49:S21-S23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aitken JM, Smith CB, Horton PW, Clark DL, Boyd JF, Smith DA (1974) The interrelationships between bone mineral at different skeletal sites in male and female cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg 56B:370–375Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garn SM (1970) The earlier gain and the later loss of cortical bone. In: Thomas CC (ed) Nutritional perspective. Springfield, IL, pp 1–146Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazess RB (1982) On aging bone loss. Clin Orthop Rel Res 165:239–252Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohr H, Schaadt O (1985) Bone mineral content of the femoral neck and shaft: relation between cortical and trabecular bone. Calcif Tissue Int 37:340–344Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nordin BEC (1984) Metabolic bone and stone disease. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wootton R, Breteron PJ, Clark MB, Hesp R, Hodkinson HM, Klenerman L, Reeve J, Slavin G, Tellez M (1979) Fractured neck of femur in the elderly: an attempt to identify patients at risk. Clin Sci 57:93–101Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horssman A (1981) In: DeLuca HF, Frost HM, Jee WSS, Johnston CC Jr (eds) Osteoporosis: recent advances in treatment and pathogenesis. University Park Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen GF, Christiansen C, Boesen J, Hegedus V, Transbol I (1982) Epidemiology of postmenopausal spinal and long bone fractures. A unifying approach to postmenopausal osteoporosis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 166:75–81Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alho A, Husby T, Hoiseth A (1986) Bone mineral content and mechanical strength: an ex vivo study on human femora at autopsy. Clin Orthop Rel Res 227:292–297Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aitken JM (1984) Relevance of osteoporosis in women with fracture of the femoral neck. Br Med J 288:597–601Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brincat M, Moniz CF, Kabalan S, Versi E, O'Dowd T, Magos AL, Montgomery J, Studd JWW (1987) Decline in skin collagen content and metacarpal index after the menopause and its prevention with sex hormone replacement. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 94:126–129Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meema HE, Meema S (1987) Postmenopausal osteoporosis: simple screening method for diagnosis before structural failure. Radiology 164:405–410Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallagher JC, Kable WT, Goldgar D (1991) Effect of progestin therapy on cortical and trabecular bone: comparison with estrogen. Am J Med 90:171–178Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reid IR, King AR, Alexander CJ, Ibberton HK (1988) Prevention of steroid-induced osteoporosis with APD. Lancet 23:143–146Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ettinger B, Genant HK, Cann CE (1987) Postmenopausal bone loss is prevented by treatment with low dosage estrogen with calcium. Ann Intern Med 106:40–45Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meema HE (1991) Improved vertebral fracture threshold in postmenopausal osteoporosis by radiogrammetric measurements: its usefulness in selection for preventive therapy. J Bone Miner Res 6:9–14Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szucs J, Horvath C, Kollin E, Szathmari M, Hollo I (1992) Three-year calcitonin combination therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis with crush fractures of the spine. Calcif Tissue Int 50:7–10Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nordin BEC, Baker MR, Horssman A, Peacock M (1985) A prospective trial of the effect of vitamin D supplementation on metacarpal bone loss in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr 42:470–474Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dubois P, Derisquebourg T, Marchandise X (1991) Mesure autometique de l'épaisseur corticale moyenne des métacarpiens. Rev Im Med 3:89–92Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devogelaer JP, Depresseaux G, Nagant de Deuxchaisnes C (1988) Reproductibility of single photon absorptiometry by rectilinear forearm scanning at three sites. In: Dequeker J, Geusens P, Wahner HW (eds) Bone mineral measurement by photon absorptiometry. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, pp 215–219Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deveogelaer JP, Depresseux G, LeThi C, Nagant de Deuxchaisnes C (1988) Reproductibility of dual photon absorptiometry on Novo type 22a in relation to various procedures and interfering factors. In: Dequeker J, Geusens P, Wahner HW (eds) Bone mineral measurement by photon absorptiometry. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, pp 205–214Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical methods. Correlation, 6th ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp 172–198Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dequeker J (1977) Problems in measuring amount of bone: reproductibility, variability, sequential evaluation. In: Meunier PJ (ed) Bone histomorphometry. Armour-Montagu, Paris, pp 19–38Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rico H, Hernandez ER (1989) Bone radiogrammetry: caliper versus magnifying glass. Calcif Tissue Int 45:285–287Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalla AA, Meyers OL, Parkyn ND, Kotze TJRW (1989) Osteoporosis screening. Radiogrammetry revisited. Br J Rheumatol 28:511–517Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Minaguchi H, Maki M, Gorai I (1990) Newly developed bone mass measurement: digital image processing (DIP) method in X-ray film of hand. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K (eds) Osteoporosis. Handelstrykkeriet Aalborg Aps, Aalborg, pp 762–764Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matsumoto C, Kushida K, Sumi Y, Yamazaki K, Taniguchi M, Inoue T (1990) Development of computed X-ray densitometry and its applications. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K (eds) Osteoporosis. Handelstrykkeriet Aalborg Aps, Aalborg, pp 772–775Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cameron EC, Boyd RM, Luk D, McIntosh HW, Walker VR (1977) Cortical thickness measurements and photon absorptiometry for determination of bone quantity. CMA J 116:145–147Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wishart JM, Horowitz M, Bochner M, Need AG, Nordin BEC (1993) Relationships between metacarpal morphometry, forearm and vertebral bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. Br J Radiol 66:435–440Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Geusens P, Dequeker J, Verstraeten A, Nijs J (1986) Age-, sex-, and menopause-related changes of vertebral and peripheral bone: population study dual and single photon absorptiometry and radiogrammetry. J Nucl Med 27:1540–1549Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Derisquebourg
    • 1
  • P. Dubois
    • 2
  • J. P. Devogelaer
    • 3
  • E. Meys
    • 3
  • B. Duquesnoy
    • 1
  • C. Nagant de Deuxchaisnes
    • 3
  • B. Delcambre
    • 1
  • X. Marchandise
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinique Rhumatologique, Centre A. Verhaeghe, Hôpital BCHU de LilleLille CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de BiophysiqueFaculté de MédecineLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.Service de RhumatologieUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Hôpital Universitaire Saint-LucBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations