Osteoporosis International

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 196–204

Which vertebrae should be assessed using lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine

  • M. Jergas
  • M. Breitenseher
  • C. -C. Glüer
  • D. Black
  • P. Lang
  • S. Grampp
  • K. Engelke
  • H. K. Genant
Original Article


The purpose of this study was to determine precision and diagnostic capability of bone mineral density measurements using lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the lumbar spine in supine position. Duplicate postero-anterior (PA) and lateral DXA measurements were performed in 60 women. Precision errors of the single vertebral levels using lateral DXA ranged from 3.3% to 4.9%. The combination of all levels improved the precision errors to 2.0%. Paired PA and lateral DXA measurements (Hologic QDR 2000) including the vertebral levels L2 to L4 were performed in 331 postmenopausal women. In 42 women an overlap of L4 by the pelvis was suspected on the lateral DXA images. Vertebral fractures were assessed as a fracture/non-fracture dichotomy. L4 and combinations of vertebrae including L4 showed the best discriminatory capabilities with respect to vertebral fractures in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses,t-tests andZ-scores, with smaller variability of the results when multiple vertebral levels were used. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.662 and 0.639 for lateral and PA measurements of L2 to L4, respectively when all women were included. Excluding the women with pelvic overlap on lateral DXA scans improved the ROC area for lateral scans to 0.686 while that for PA scans remained almost constant (0.641). The differences between PA and lateral measurements were not statistically significant. In 162 women of our study cohort an additional quantitative computed tomography (QCT) measurement of the vertebral levels L2 to L4 was performed and overlapping bony structures at the three levels were studied. Overlapping bony structures were found on QCT slices in 96.9% at the L2 level and in 31.5% at the L3 level. At the L4 level an overlap was found in 5.6% of the women in addition to 31 women in whom L4 overlap had been suspected on DXA images. In total, the level L4 was overlapped in 24.7% of the women. Lateral DXA measurements of the lumbar spine with the patient in supine position are meaningful for diagnosis and follow-up of osteopenia. The inclusion of a maximum number of vertebrae, i.e. L2 to L4 (if L4 is not overlapped by pelvic bone), improves precision and diagnostic capability of the method.


Bone mineral density Diagnosis Dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry Osteoprosis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cullum ID, Ell PJ, Ryder JP. X-ray dual photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone density. Br J Radiol 1989;62:587–92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazess R, Chesnut CH III, McClung M, Genant HK. Enhanced precision with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;51:14–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jergas M, Grampp S, Hagiwara S, et al. Perspectives on bone densitometry: past/present/future. J Bone Miner Metab 1993;11 (Suppl 1):S7–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ito M, Hayashi K, Yamada M, Uetani M, Nakamura T. Relationship of osteophytes to bone mineral density and spinal fracture to men. Radiology 1993;189:497–502.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drinka PJ, DeSmet AA, Bauwens SF, Rogot A. The effect of overlying calcification on lumbar bone densitometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;50:507–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reid IR, Evans MC, Ames R, Wattie DJ. The influence of osteophytes and aortic calcification on spinal mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991;72:1372–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larnach TA, Boyd SJ, Smart RC, et al. Reproducibility of lateral spine scans using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;51:255–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rupich R, Pacifici R, Griffin M, et al. Lateral dual energy radiography: a new method for measuring vertebral bone density. A preliminary study. J Clin Endocrinol Metal 1990;70:1768–70.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uebelhart D, Duboeuf F, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD. Lateral dualphoton absorptiometry: a new technique to measure the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 1990;5:525–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slosman DO, Rissoli R, Donath A, Bonjour J-P. Vertebral bone mineral density measured laterally by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 1990;1:23–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reid IR, Evans MC, Stapleton J. Lateral spine densitometry is a more sensitive indicator of glucocorticoid-induced bone loss. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:1221–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finkelstein JS, Cleary RL, Butler JP, et al. A comparison of lateral versus anterior-posterior spine dual energy x-ray absorptiometry for the diagnosis of osteopenia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994;78:724–30.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, vanKuijk C, Nevitt M. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semi-quantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1137–48.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steiger P, Block JE, Steiger S, et al. Spinal bone mineral density by quantitative computed tomography: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. Radiology 1990;175:537–43.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peel NFA, Eastell R. Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:317–20.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metz CE, Kronman HB. Statistical significance tests for binormal ROC curves. J Math Psychol 1980;22:218–43.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang P, Schmitz S, Steiger P, Genant HK, Lateral dual X-ray absorptiometry of the spine: a comparison with AP dual x-ray absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K, editors. Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Osteoporosis. Copenhagen, Denmark: Osteopress ApS, 1990:836–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lilley J, Eyre S, Walters B, Heath DA, Mountford PJ. An investigation of spinal bone mineral density measured laterally: a normal range for UK women. Br J Radiol 1994;67:157–61.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mazess RB, Gifford CA, Bisek JP, Barden HS, Hanson JA. DEXA mesurement of spine density in the lateral projection. I. Methodology. Calcif Tissue Int 1991;49:235–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duboeuf F, Pommet R, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the spine in anteroposterior and lateral projections. Osteoporosis Int 1994;4:110–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rupich RC, Griffin MG, Pacifici R, Avioli LV, Susman N. Lateral dual-energy radiography: artifact error from rib and pelvic bone. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:97–101.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmitz S, Steiger P, Melnikoff S, Lang P, Genant HK, Lateral x-ray dual absorptiometry of the spine: estimating soft-tissue inhomogeneity with CT. Radiology 1990;177(Suppl):172.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wahner HW, Fogelman I. The evaluation of osteoporosis: dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in clinical practice. Cambridge, Martin Dunitz: 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glüer CC, Genant HK. Impact of marrow fat on accuracy of quantitative CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:1023–35.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tothill P, Pye DW. Errors due to non-uniform distribution of fat in dual x-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. Br J Radiol 1992;65:807–13.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Overgaard K, Hansen MA, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Discriminatory ability of bone mass measurements (SPA and DEXA) for fractures in elderly postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;50:30–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mazess RM, Barden H, Mautalen C, Vega E. Normalization of spine densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:541–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Torgenson DJ, Donaldson C, Garton MJ, Russell IT, Westland M, Reid DM. Population screening for low bone mineral density: do non-attenders have a lower risk of osteoporosis? Osteoporosis Int 1994;4:149–53.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hangartner TN, Johnston CC. Influence of fat on bone measurement with dual-energy absorptiometry. Bone Miner 1990;9:71–81.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tothill P, Avenell A. Errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine owing to fat distribution and soft tissue thickness during weight change. Br J Radiol 1994;67:71–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jergas
    • 1
  • M. Breitenseher
    • 2
  • C. -C. Glüer
    • 1
  • D. Black
    • 3
  • P. Lang
    • 1
  • S. Grampp
    • 1
  • K. Engelke
    • 1
  • H. K. Genant
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of California San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations