Osteoporosis International

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 871–878 | Cite as

Clinical utility of dual-energy vertebral assessment (DVA)

  • Tamara J. Vokes
  • Larry B. Dixon
  • Murray J. Favus
Original Article

Abstract

The current study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical utility of DVA, a system for imaging the lateral spine on the Lunar Prodigy densitometer. DVA images were obtained and bone density of the lumbar spine and proximal femur measured in 297 subjects (272 women), aged 64±13 years. The images were classified as: normal (N) if no fractures were detected and all vertebrae between T6 and L4 were visualized, fracture (F) if any vertebra had a fracture (defined as 25% or more reduction in the vertebral height) even if some of the other vertebrae could not be visualized, and un-interpretable (U) if at least one of the vertebra between T6 and L4 could not be classified and no fractures were detected in the visualized vertebrae. A subset of 66 patients also had standard radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Compared to radiographs, DVA had a 95% sensitivity to detect fractures and 82% specificity (to exclude them). Among all 297 subjects studied, DVAs were interpretable in 87%. They were classified as N in 204 (68%), F in 55 (19%) and U in 38 (13%). The reasons for un-interpretability were: scoliosis, scapular or rib shadow, severe arthritic changes and multiple vertebral compression fracture with severe spinal deformities. Only 11% of F subjects gave a history of a vertebral fracture, and only 56% of F subjects met the BMD criteria for osteoporosis (T score <−2.5). These results indicate that adding DVA, a low radiation and relatively low cost "point of service" procedure, to BMD measurement provides the clinician with a more comprehensive fracture risk assessment than that afforded by clinical evaluation and BMD measurement alone.

Keywords

Bone mineral density (BMD) DVA Osteoporosis Vertebral absorptiometry Vertebral fractures Vertebral morphometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the grant AR42739/4A2 S1 from the National Institutes of Health and an unrestricted educational grant from the Fred and Susan Novy Family Foundation. The authors wish to thank Gina Keys and William Wilson for performing the DVA scans and Anca Guiu and Deepti Singh for help with data processing.

References

  1. 1.
    Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, Pearson J, Cummings SR (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 14:821–828PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melton LJ 3rd, Atkinson EJ, Cooper C, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1999) Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 10:214–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. Jama 285:320–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kotowicz MA, Melton LJ 3rd, Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1994) Risk of hip fracture in women with vertebral fracture. J Bone Miner Res 9:599–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross PD, Genant HK, Davis JW, Miller PD, Wasnich RD (1993) Predicting vertebral fracture incidence from prevalent fractures and bone density among non-black, osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 3:120–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rea JA, SteigerP, Blake GM, Fogelman I (1998) Optimizing data acquisition and analysis of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 8:177–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rea JA, Steiger P, Blake GM, Potts E, Smith IG, Fogelman I (1998) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry: reference data for vertebral dimensions. J Bone Miner Res 13:464–474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rea JA, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2000) Visual assessment of vertebral deformity by X-ray absorptiometry: a highly predictive method to exclude vertebral deformity. Osteoporos Int 11:660–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2000) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification. J Bone Miner Res 15:564–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J, Marsh E, Fan B, Blake GM, Steiger P, Smith IG, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2001) Vertebral morphometry: a comparison of long-term precision of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography in normal and osteoporotic subjects. Osteoporos Int 12:158–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rea JA, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2001) Development of a phantom for morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 74:341–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferrar L, Jiang G, Barrington NA, Eastell R (2000) Identification of vertebral deformities in women: comparison of radiological assessment and quantitative morphometry using morphometric radiography and morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 15:575–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrar L, Jiang G, Eastell R (2001) Short-term precision for morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 12:710–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edmondston SJ, Singer KP, Day RE, Price RI, Breidahl PD (1997) Ex vivo estimation of thoracolumbar vertebral body compressive strength: the relative contributions of bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry. Osteoporos Int 7:142–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genant HK, Li J, Wu CY, Shepherd JA (2000) Vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: a new method for clinical assessment. J Clin Densitom 3:281–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steiger P, Cummings SR, Genant HK, Weiss H (1994) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry of the spine: correlation in vivo with morphometric radiography. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Osteoporos Int 4:238–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lang T, Takada M, Gee R, Wu C, Li J, Hayashi-Clark C, Schoen S, March V, Genant HK (1997) A preliminary evaluation of the lunar expert-XL for bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry. J Bone Miner Res 12:136–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenspan SL, von Stetten E, Emond SK, Jones L, Parker RA (2001) Instant vertebral assessment: a noninvasive dual X-ray absorptiometry technique to avoid misclassification and clinical mismanagement of osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 4:373–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones G, White C, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA (1996) Prevalent vertebral deformities: relationship to bone mineral density and spinal osteophytosis in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int 6:233–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L (2000) Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 11:680–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schousboe JT, DeBold CR, Bowles C, Glickstein S, Rubino RK (2002) Prevalence of vertebral compression fracture deformity by X-ray absorptiometry of lateral thoracic and lumbar spines in a population referred for bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom 5:239–246PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara J. Vokes
    • 1
  • Larry B. Dixon
    • 2
  • Murray J. Favus
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Chicago, Pritzker School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Chicago, Pritzker School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations