Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 307–310 | Cite as

Right and left proximal femur analyses: Is there a need to do both?

  • S. L. Bonnick
  • D. L. Nichols
  • C. F. Sanborn
  • S. G. Payne
  • S. M. Moen
  • C. J. Heiss
Clinical Investigations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences existed between right and left proximal femur bone mineral density (BMD) in a group of women. Participants for the study were 198 women ranging in age from 16 to 73 years. Bone mineral densities of both proximal femurs (femoral neck, Ward's area, and trochanter) were assessed using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar DPX). Mean (±SD) age, height, and weight of the participants were 32.9±18 years, 164±7.4 cm, and 64.9±12.1 kg, respectively. Significant differences between right and left femoral BMDs were found only in the trochanter. Overall, mean differences in BMD were low (neck=0.7%, Ward's =0.2%, and trochanter=1.9%) but individual variations were as high as 22%. Based on BMD z-scores of <−1.0, 84 women were classified as “at risk” for osteoporosis. When right and left z-scores were compared, misclassifications of at risk women were 4, 15, and 11 for neck, Ward's area, and trochanter, respectively. In conclusion, analyses of both right and left proximal femurs may not be necessary for either the researcher or the clinician.

Key words

Bone mineral measurement Osteoporosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pouilles J, Tremollieres F, Ribot C (1993) Spine and femur densitometry at the menopause: Are both sites necessary in the assessment of the risk of osteoporosis? Calcif Tissue Int 52:344–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin MC, Rupich RC, Avioli LV, Pacifici R (1991) A comparison of dual energy radiography measurements at the lumbar spine and proximal femur for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 73:1164–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mazess RB, Barden HS (1990) Interrelationships among bone densitometry sites in normal young women. Bone Miner 11:347–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 8:1227–1233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensurd K, Genant HK, Palermo L, Scott J, Vogt TM (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 341:72–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lai K, Rencken M, Drinkwater BL, Chestnut CH (1993) Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision. Calcif Tissue Int 53:225–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Center for Health Statistics (1987) Department of Health and Human Services, Publication No. 87-1688, Hyattsville, MDGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. L. Bonnick
    • 1
  • D. L. Nichols
    • 2
  • C. F. Sanborn
    • 1
  • S. G. Payne
    • 3
  • S. M. Moen
    • 4
  • C. J. Heiss
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Research on Women's HealthTexas Woman's UniversityDenton
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyTexas Woman's UniversityDenton
  3. 3.Department of Physical EducationEast Central State U.Ada
  4. 4.Department of KinesiologyDallas Baptist UniversityDallas
  5. 5.Department of Food Science and Human NutritionWashington State UniversityPullman

Personalised recommendations