Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 7–11 | Cite as

Comparison of antero-posterior and lateral measurements of the vertebral mineral contents by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

  • Riko Kitazawa
  • Yasuo Imai
  • Hajime Yamada
  • Masaaki Fukase
  • Takuo Fujita
Original Articles

Abstract

Bone mineral measurements of the 2nd and 3rd vertebrae were made using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in both antero-posterior (AP) and lateral (Lat) projections in 49 women (Group I; 24 young controls, II; 11 elderly controls, III; 14 osteoporotics). The coefficients of variation of the AP and Lat measurements of BMC in 3 young women were 2.2% and 8.4% of the respective mean values. In Group I, BMCs obtained by the Lat measurement were 11.6±15.7% below BMCAP (p<0.05). In Group II and III, on the other hands, BMCLat was as low as below 34.2±11.9% (Group II) and 40.1±21.5% (Group III) of respective AP contents (p<0.01). This discrepancy between BM CLat and BMCAP in Group II and III could not be acounted by the measurement error of Lat determination alone. Furthermore, the difference of bone mineral density (BMD) between Group I and II (or III) appeared to be much more pronounced when compared by the data obtained from the Lat measurements than the comparison using BMDAP. Extra-skeltal calcification projected on the AP plane, including calcified aorta and ligaments, may attribute such a difference between AP and Lat measurements. Our observation indicated the possibility of an overestimation of BMC and BMD by the AP determination of the spine. Therfore, an improvement of the reproducibility to measure the spine by the Lat determination with DEXA is mandatory for the detection of subclinical osteoporosis.

Key Words

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry Bone mineral content Antero-posterior measurement Lateral measurement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Genant H.K., Block J.E., Steiger P., Glueer C.C., Ettinger B., Harris S.T.: Appropriate use of bone densitometry. Radiology 170, 817–822, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones C.D., Laval-Jeantet A.-M., Laval-Jeantet M.H., Genant H.K.: Importance of measurement of spongious vertebral bone mineral density in the assessment of osteoporosis. Bone 8, 201–206, 1987.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein D.S., Sadowsky N., Hegested D.M., Guri C.D., Stare F.J.: Prevalence of osteoporosis in high- and low-fluoride areas in North Dakota. J Am Med Assoc 198, 499–504, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dent C.D., Engelbrecht H.E., Godfrey R.C.: Osteoporosis of lumbar vertebrae and calcification of abdominal aorta in women living in Durban. Br Med J 1968; 4: 76–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujita T, Okamoto Y, Sakagami Y, Ota K, Ohata M. Bone change and calcification in aging inhabitants of mountain versus seacoast communities in the Kii peninsula. J Am Geriatr Soc 32, 124–128, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujita T.: Aging and calcium. Mineral Electrolyte Metab 12, 149–156, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wahner H.W., Dunn W.L., Brown M.L., Morin R.L., Riggs B.L.: Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine. Mayo Clin Proc 63, 1075–1084, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan D.B.: Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–42, 1955.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Bone Metabolism Research 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riko Kitazawa
    • 1
  • Yasuo Imai
    • 1
  • Hajime Yamada
    • 1
  • Masaaki Fukase
    • 1
  • Takuo Fujita
    • 1
  1. 1.Third Division, Department of MedicineKobe University School of MedicineKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations