Osteoporosis International

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 339–344

The diagnostic role of dual femur bone density measurement in low-impact fractures

  • Joseph C. H. Wong
  • Louise McEwan
  • Naomi Lee
  • Matthew R. Griffiths
  • Nicholas A. Pocock
Original Article


A high correlation has been documented between the left and right femoral bone mineral densities in the normal population. This suggests that dual femur measurements are not justified in clinical practice. This study evaluated whether this premise holds for subjects who have lost bone mass and have sustained fractures with minimal trauma. Seventy-eight women aged 31–83 years (mean=66 years) with previous low-impact fractures had both proximal femora measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. There were significant correlations between values in the left and right total hip (TH) (r=0.95; p<0.05) and in the left and right femoral neck (FN) (r=0.90; p<0.05). The mean differences between the left and right TH and FN densities were not significant. However, the range of the limits of agreement for the TH (−0.074 to 0.086 g/cm2) and FN (−0.115 to 0.105 g/cm2) were greater than the 95% confidence interval for true change for the TH (0.05 g/cm2) and FN (0.07 g/cm2). Any longitudinal BMD assessment therefore needs to measure the same proximal femur to get a reliable comparison. A one-tailed analysis showed that for the TH, 7.5% of subjects had a T-score discordance greater than or equal to 0.5 and 0.5% had a T-score discordance greater than or equal to 1. For the FN, 9% had a T-score discordance greater than or equal to 0.5 and 2.5% had a T-score discordance greater than or equal to 1. The use of dual femur measurements increases the diagnostic yield by about 10% in subjects with prior minimal trauma fractures.


Bone densitometry Dual femur Fracture risk 


  1. 1.
    Sernbo I, Johnell O (1993) Consequences of a hip fracture: a prospective study over 1 year. Osteoporos Int 3:148–153Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chrischilles EA, Butler CD, Davis CS, Wallace RB (1991) A model of lifetime osteoporosis impact. Arch Intern Med 151:2026–2032Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobey JC, Cobey JH, Conant L, Weil UH, Greenwald WF, Southwick WO (1976) Indicators of recovery from fractures of the hip. Clin Orthop 117:258–262Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melton LJ, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Wahner HW, Riggs BL (1993) Long-term fracture prediction by bone mineral assessed at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 8:1227–1233Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC et al. (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fracture. Lancet 341:72–75Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faulkner KG, Genant HK, McClung M (1995) Bilateral comparison of femoral bone density and hip axis length from single and fan beam DXA scans. Calcif Tissue Int 56:26–31Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao AD, Reddy S, Rao DS (2000) Is there a difference between right and left femoral bone density? J Clin Densitometry 3:57–61Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonnick SL, Nichols DL, Sanborn CF, Payne SG, Moen SM, Heiss CJ (1996) Right and left proximal femur analyses: is there a need to do both? Calcif Tissue Int 58:307–310Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balseiro J, Fahey FH, Ziessman HA, Le TV (1988) Comparison of bone mineral density in both hips. Radiology 167:151–153Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall ML, Heavens J, Ell PJ (1991) Variation between femurs as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Eur J Nucl Med 18:38–40Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lilley J, Walters BG, Heath DA, Drolc Z (1992) Comparison and investigation of bone mineral density in opposing femora by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 2:274–278Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franck H, Munz M, Scherrer M (1997) Bone mineral density of opposing hips using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in single-beam and fan-beam designs. Calcif Tissue Int 61:445–447Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang RS, Tsai KS, Chieng PU, Liu TK (1997) Symmetry of bone mineral density at the proximal femur with emphasis on the effect of side dominance. Calcif Tissue Int 61:189–191Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical assessment. Lancet I:307–310Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blake GM, Fogelman I (1997) Interpretation of bone densitometry studies. Semin Nucl Med 27:248–260Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    WHO Technical Report Series 1994; No. 843Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanson J (1997) Standardization of femur BMD. J Bone Miner Res 12:1316–1317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph C. H. Wong
    • 1
  • Louise McEwan
    • 1
  • Naomi Lee
    • 1
  • Matthew R. Griffiths
    • 1
  • Nicholas A. Pocock
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Bone DensitometryRoyal Brisbane HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Bone DensitometrySt Vincent's HospitalDarlinghurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations