The Normal Bone Scan

  • M. V. Merrick

Abstract

The bone scan is the most frequently performed nuclear medicine investigation, the commonest indication being the detection of occult metastases, for which purpose the entire skeleton should be imaged. For other purposes it is often adequate to examine only part of the skeleton. The amount of isotope taken up at any site depends primarily on the local rate of bone turnover rather than on bone mass. The scintigraphic appearance therefore does not necessarily correlate with the radiographic one; however, as there is a relationship between the rate at which bone is replaced and the quantity of bone which is present at any point, the two appearances are not entirely unrelated.

Keywords

Obesity Pyrophosphate Osteomyelitis Sinusitis Technetium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams FG, Shirley AW (1983) Factors influencing bone scan quality. Eur J Nucl Med 8: 436–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple JS, Martinez S, Nunley JA (1984) Painful os styloideum: bone scintigraphy in Carpe Bossu disease. AJR 142:181–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cawley KA, Dvorak AD, Wilmot MD (1983) Normal anatomic variant: scintigraphy of the ischiopubic synchondrosis. J Nucl Med 24:14–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Charkes ND, Valentine G, Cravitz B (1973) Interpretation of the normal 99mTc polyphosphate rectilinear bone scan. Radiology 107:563–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Citrin DL, Bessent RG, Tuohy JB et al. (1975a) A comparison of phosphate bone-scanning agents in normal subjects and patients with malignant disease. Br J Radiol 48:118–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Citrin DL, Bessent RG, McGinley E, Gordon D (1975b) Dynamic studies with 99mTe-HEDP in normal subjects and in patients with bone tumours. J Nucl Med 16: 886–890PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckelman WC, Reba RC, Kubota H, Stevenson JS (1974) 99mTc-pyrophosphate for bone imaging. J Nucl Med 15: 279–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fink-Bennett D, Johnson J (1985) Stippled ribs—a potential pitfall in bone scan interpretation. J Nucl Med 26: 82 (abstract)Google Scholar
  9. Fink-Bennett D, Vicuna-Rios J (1980) The deltoid tuberosity—a potential pit-fall (the “delta sign”) in bone scan interpretation: concise communication. J Nucl Med 21:211–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fogelman I, Citrin DL, McKillop JH, Turner JG, Bessent RG, Greig WR (1979) A clinical comparison of Tc99m HEDP and Tc99m MDP in the detection of bone metastases: concise communication. J Nucl Med 20: 98–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fogelman I, McKillop JH, Gray HW (1983) The “hot patella” sign: is it of any clinical significance ? Concise communication. J Nucl Med 24:312–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fogelman I, Pearson DW, Bessent RG, Tofe AJ, Francis MD (1981) A comparison of skeletal uptakes of three diphosphonates by whole-body retention: concise communication. J Nucl Med 22: 880–883PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Harbert J, Desai R (1985) Small calvarical bone scan foci— normal variations. J Nucl Med 26:1144–1148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardoff R, Front D (1978) The value of delayed (24-hour) bone scintigraphy. Clin Nucl Med 3: 39–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hattner RS, Miller SW, Schimmel D (1975) Significance of renal asymmetry in bone scans: experience in 795 cases. J Nucl Med 16:161–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin D, Alavi A, Dalinka M (1981) Scintigraphic evaluation of the hyoid bone and the thyroid-cricoid cartilage. Int J Nucl Med Biol 8: 96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Makler PT Jr, Charkes ND (1980) Studies of skeletal tracer kinetics. IV. Optimum time delay for Tc-99m (Sn) methylene diphosphonate bone imaging. J Nucl Med 21: 641–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maurer AH, Chen DCP, Camargo EE, Wong DF, Wagner HN, Alderson PO (1981) Utility of three-phase skeletal scintigraphy in suspected osteomyelitis. J Nucl Med 22:941–949PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Merrick MV (1973) Detection of skeletal metastases: a comparison of three radioisotope techniques using 18F and radiology. Br J Radiol 46: 968–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merrick MV (1975) Review article. Bone scanning. Br J Radiol 48:327–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merrick MV (1984) Essentials of nuclear medicine. Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Oppenheim BE, Cantez S (1977) What causes lower neck uptake in bone scans ? Radiology 124: 749–752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pitt WR, Sharp PF (1985) Comparison of quantitative and visual detection of new focal bone lesions. J Nucl Med 26:230–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schutte HE (1980) Some special views in bone scanning. Clin Nucl Med 5:172–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith HL, Beal W, Chaudhuri T (1982) Significance of skull vertex in bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 23: 78Google Scholar
  26. Sy WM, Patel D, Faunce H (1975) Significance of absent or faint kidney sign on bone scan. J Nucl Med 16:454–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Velchik MG, Heyman S, Makler PT et al. (1984) Bone scintigraphy: differentiating benign cortical irregularity of the distal femur from malignancy. J Nucl Med 25: 72–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson MA (1981) The effect of age on the quality of bone scans using technetium-99m pyrophosphate. Radiology 139: 703–705PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. V. Merrick

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations