HSS Journal

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 89–92 | Cite as

Bone Mineral Density Determinations by Dual-Energy x-ray Absorptiometry in the Management of Patients with Marfan Syndrome—Some Factors Which Affect the Measurement

  • Philip F. Giampietro
  • Margaret G. E. Peterson
  • Robert Schneider
  • Jessica G. Davis
  • Stephen W. Burke
  • Oheneba Boachie-Adjei
  • Charles M. Mueller
  • Cathleen L. Raggio
Original Article

Abstract

Reduced bone mineral density (BMD) was sporadically reported in patients with Marfan syndrome. This may or may not place the Marfan patient at increased risk for bone fracture. In comparing the BMDs of our patients with those reported in the literature, it seemed that agreement between values, and hence the degree of osteoporosis or osteopenia reported, was dependent on the instrumentation used. The objective of this study was to statistically assess this impression. Bone mineral density measurements from our previously published study of 30 adults with Marfan syndrome performed on a Lunar DPXL machine were compared with studies published between 1993–2000 measured using either Lunar or Hologic bone densitometry instruments. The differences of our measurements compared with those made on other Lunar machines were not statistically significant, but did differ significantly with published results from Hologic machines (P < 0.001). Before progress can be made in the assessment of BMD and fracture risk in Marfan patients and in the evidence-based orthopedic management of these patients, standardization of instrumental bone density determinations will be required along with considerations of height, obesity, age, and sex.

Key words

BMD bone mineral density dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry Marfan syndrome study comparisons 

References

  1. 1.
    De Paepe A, Devereux RB, Dietz HC et al (1996) Revised diagnostic criteria for the Marfan syndrome. Am J Med Genet 62:417–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pyeritz RE, McKusick VA (1979) The Marfan syndrome: diagnosis and management. N Engl J Med 300:772–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller DC (2003) Valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with the Marfan syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125:773–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peters KF, Kong F, Hanslo M et al (2002) Living with Marfan syndrome III. Quality of life and reproductive planning. Clin Genet 62:110–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray JR, Bridges AB, Mole PA et al (1993) Osteoporosis and the Marfan syndrome. Postgrad Med J 69:373–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohlmeier L, Gasner C, Marcus R (1993) Bone mineral status of women with Marfan syndrome. Am J Med 95:568–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tobias JH, Dalzell N, Child AH (1995) Assessment of bone mineral density in women with Marfan syndrome. Br J Rheumatol 34:516–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohlmeier L, Gasner C, Bachrach LK et al (1995) The bone mineral status of patients with Marfan syndrome. J Bone Miner Res 10:1550–1555PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LeParc JM, Plantin P, Jondeau G et al (1999) Bone mineral density in sixty adult patients with Marfan syndrome. Osteoporos Int 10:475–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter N, Duncan E, Wordsworth P (2000) Bone mineral density in adults with Marfan syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39:307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giampietro PF, Peterson M, Schneider R et al (2003) Assessment of bone mineral density in adults and children with Marfan syndrome. Osteoporos Int 14:559–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woo SB, Hellstein JW, Kalmar JR (2006) Narrative (corrected) review: bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaws. Ann Intern Med 144:753–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cawte SA, Pearson D, Green DJ et al (1999) Cross-calibration, precision and patient dose measurements in preparation for clinical trials using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. Br J Radiol 72:354–362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu Y, Mathur AK, Blunt BA et al (1996) Dual x-ray absorptiometry quality control: comparison of visual examination and process-control charts. J Bone Miner Res 11:626–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faulkner KG, Roberts LA, McClung MR (1996) Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems. Osteoporos Int 6:432–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S et al (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12:438–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ingle BM, Sherwood KE, Eastell R (2001) Comparison of two methods for measuring ultrasound properties of the heel in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 12:500–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pearson D, Cawte SA, Green DJ (2002) A comparison of phantoms for cross-calibration of lumbar spine DXA. Osteoporos Int 13:948–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gjesdal CG, Aanderud SJ, Haga HJ et al (2004) Femoral and whole-body bone mineral density in middle-aged and older Norwegian men and women: suitability of the reference values. Osteoporos Int 15:525–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tothill P, Laskey MA, Orphanidou CI et al (1999) Anomalies in dual energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements of total-body bone mineral during weight change using Lunar, Hologic and Norland instruments. Br J Radiol 72:661–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gilsanz V (1998) Bone density in children: a review of the available techniques and indications. Eur J Radiol 26:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kharrazi FD, Rodgers WB, Coran DL et al (1997) Protrusio acetabuli and bilateral basicervical femoral neck fractures in a patient with Marfan syndrome. Am J Orthop 26:689–691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters KF, Horne R, Kong F et al (2001) Living with Marfan syndrome. II. Medication adherence and physical activity modification. Clin Genet 60:283–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J et al (1998) Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1801–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip F. Giampietro
    • 3
  • Margaret G. E. Peterson
    • 2
  • Robert Schneider
    • 2
  • Jessica G. Davis
    • 1
  • Stephen W. Burke
    • 2
  • Oheneba Boachie-Adjei
    • 2
  • Charles M. Mueller
    • 1
  • Cathleen L. Raggio
    • 2
  1. 1.Weill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Medical Genetic ServicesMarshfield ClinicMarshfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations