Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bone densitometry: Current assessment

  • Session V: Bone And Biochemical Measurements
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusions

Noninvasive measurements of bone mineral density allow the assessment of skeletal integrity, both centrally and peripherally, with high precision and accuracy and with relatively low radiation dose. When estimating skeletal status, it may be important to measure bone mineral density at more than one site to assess differential skeletal responses related to disease or therapy and to assess differential fracture risk. Due to technical differences between the various methods of bone mineral measurement, the quantitative results are typically expressed with differing calibration standards, such that direct comparisons must be carefully made.

SPA measurements have been shown in several prospective studies to aid in the assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk. Limited data to date have shown spinal DPA to be at least comparable to peripheral SPA for fracture risk assessment, and current research with DXA indicates promising results for the X-ray-based bone densitometers. DXA has seen rapid growth in recent years, with current scanners able to measure the spine, hip, forearm and total body bone mineral density with a speed and precision previously unattainable with the isotope-based DPA systems. Longitudinal studies have shown QCT to be highly sensitive for detecting early and rapid bone loss and cross-sectional studies have shown QCT's capacity for separating normal and osteoporotic patient populations. though prospective studies are needed to confirm the latter result. QCT has the disadvantage of higher cost and radiation dose compared with the other methods currently in use, but it is the only noninvasive modality able preferentially to measure trabecular, cortical, or integral bone density at any skeletal site. All of the techniques in current clinical use, specifically SPA, DPA, DXA and QCT, represent major advances for the noninvasive measurement of bone mineral density at radiation doses significantly less than those due to yearly exposure from normal background radiation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cameron JR, Mazess RB, Sorenson MS. Precision and accuracy of bone mineral determination b direct photon absorptiometry. Invest Radiol 1968;3:141–50.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nilas L, Borg J, Gotfredsen A, Christiansen C. Comparison of single-and dual-photon absorptiometry in postmenopausal bone mineral loss. J Nucl Med 1985;26:1257–62.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vogel JM, Wasnich RD, Ross PD. The clinical relevance of calcaneus bone mineral measurements: a review. Bone Miner 1988;5:35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Steiger P, Genant HK, Black D, Cummings SR. Bone mineral density in women over 65 as measured by single photon absorptiometry of the radius and os calcis. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4[Supplement]:S376.

  5. Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC. Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study. J Clin Invest 1988;81:1804–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al. Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. JAMA 1990;263:665–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Vogel JM. Detection of prefracture spinal osteoporosis with measurement absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 1988;3:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Seeley DG, Browner WS, Cummings SR, Genant HK. Which fractures are predicted with measurement of bone mineral density? Ann Intern Med 1991;115:837–2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heymsfield SB, Wang J, Heshka S, Kehayias JJ, Pierson RN. Dual photon absorptiometry: comparison of bone mineral and soft tissue mass measurements in vivo with established methods. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;49:1283–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Slemenda CW, Johnston CC. Bone mass measurement: which site to measure? Am J Med 1988;84:643–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gotfredsen A, Borg J, Christiansen C, Mazess RB. Total body bone mineral in vivo by dual photon absorptiometry. Clin Phys 1984;4:343–62.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Vogel JM. Precision errors in dual-photon absorptiometry related to source age. Radiology 1988;166:523–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson T, Roos B, Nachemson A. The bone mineral content and ultimate compressive strength of lumbar vertebrae. Spine 1980;5:46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Heuck A, Block J, Glüer CC, Steiger P, Genant HK. Mild versus definite osteoporosis: comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:891–900.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrun LK, Vogel JM. Prediction of postmenopausal fracture risk with use of bone mineral measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:745–51.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson CR, Collier BD, Carrera GF, Jacobson DR. Acronym for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Radiology 1990;176:875–6.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Brown ML, Morin RL, Riggs BL. Comparison of dual-energy absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine. 1988;63:1075–84.

  18. Glüer CC, Steiger P, Selvidge R, Elliesen-Kliefoth K, Hayashi C, Genant HK. Comparitive assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography. Radiology 1990;174:223–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mazess RB, Coolick B, Trempe J, Barden H, Hanson J. Performance evaluation of a dual energy x-ray bone densitometer. Calcif Tissue Int 1989;44:228–32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Borders J, Kerr E, Sartoris DJ, et al. Quantitative dual energy radiographic absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: in vivo comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Radiology 1989;170:129–31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reid DM, Lanham SA, McDonald AG, et al. Speed and comparability of 3 dual energy x-ray absorptiometer (DEXA) models. In: Third international symposium on osteoporosis, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1990:61.

  22. Kalender W, Felsenberg D, Polacin A, Helm U. Cross-calibration phantom for spinal bone mineral measurements with quantitative CT and DXA. Radiology 1990;177(P):306.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rupich R, Pacifici R, Griffin M, Vered I, Susman N, Avioli LV. Lateral dual energy radiography: a new method for measuring vertebral bone density: a preliminary study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990;70:1768–70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Slosman DO, Rissoli R, Donath A, Bonjour J-P. Vertebral bone mineral density measured laterally by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 1991;1:23–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly TL, Steiger P, von Setten E, Stein JA. Performance evaluation of a multi-detector DXA device. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6(1).

  26. Pommet R, Chambellan D, Reverchon P, Pare C, Lecluse A, Panissier P. Array multidetector bone densitometry for supine vertebral measurement in lateral projection. 1991;1:190.

  27. Black DM, Cummings SR, Genant HK, et al. Axial bone mineral density predicts fractures in older women. San Diego, CA, pg. 1991.

  28. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, et al. Bone densitometry and hip fractures in older women: a prospective study. Submitted. 1991.

  29. Genant HK, Cann CE, Ettinger B, Gordan GS. Quantitative computed tomography of vertebral spongiosa: a sensitive method for detecting early bone loss after oopherectomy. Ann Intern Med 1982;97:699–705.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980;4:493.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kalender WA, Suss C. A new callibration phantom for quantitative computed tomography. Med Phys 1987;9:816–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Arnold B. Solid phantom for QCT bone mineral analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on bone densitometry, Palm Springs, California, 1989. Sept. 17–21.

  33. Cann CE. Quantitative CT applications: comparison of newer CT scanners. Radiology 1987;162:257–61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stebler B, Rusesegger P. Special purpose CT system for quantitative bone evaluation in the appendicular skeleton. Biomed Tech 1983;28:196.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schneider P, Börner W, Mazess RB, Barden H. The relationship of peripheral to axial bone density. Bone Miner 1988;4:279–87.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Glüer CC, Steiger PW, Block JE, Genant HK. Precision studies of quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur. Radiology 1987;165 (P):297.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Esses SI, Lotz JC, Hayes WC. Biomedical properties of the proximal femur determined in vitro by single-energy quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:715–22.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van Berkum FAR, Birkenhäger JC, Van CE LAP, et al. Noninvasive axial and peripheral assessment of bone mineral content: a comparison between osteoporotic women and normal subjects. J Bone Miner Res 1989;5:679–85.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Steiger P, Block JE, Steiger S, et al. Spinal bone mineral density by quantitative computed tomography: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. Radiology 1990;175:537–43.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Glüer CC, Genant HK. Impact of marrow fat on accuracy of quantitative CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:1023–35.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reinbold WD, Genant HK, Reiser UJ, Harris ST, Ettinger B. Bone mineral content in early-postmenopausal osteoporotic women and postmenopausal women: comparison of measurement methods. Radiology 1986;160:469–78.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pacifici R, Susman N, Carr RL, Birge SJ, Avioli LV. Single and dual energy tomographic analysis of spinal trabecular bone: a comparative study in normal and osteoporotic women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987;67:328–35.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al. Differential changes in bone mineral density of the appendicular and axial skeleton with aging. J Clin Invest 1981:67:328–35.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pacifici R, Rupich R, Griffin M, Chines A, Susman N, Avioli LV. Dual energy radiography versus quantitative tomongraphy for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990;70:705–10.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mosekilde L, Bentzen SM, Ørtoft G, J ørgensen J. The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density. Bone 1989;10:465–70.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cann CE, Genant HK, Kolb FO, et al. Quantitative computed tomography for prediction of vertebral fracture risk. Metab Bone Dis RelRes 1984;5:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nordin BEC, Wishart JM, Horowitz M, Need AG, Bridges A, Bellon M. The relation between forearm and vertebral mineral density and fractures in postmenopausal women. Bone Miner 1988:5:21–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

    H. K. Genant, K. G. Faulkner, C. C. Glüer & K. Engelke

Authors
  1. H. K. Genant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. G. Faulkner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. C. Glüer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Engelke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Genant, H.K., Faulkner, K.G., Glüer, C.C. et al. Bone densitometry: Current assessment. Osteoporosis Int 3 (Suppl 1), 91–97 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01621875

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01621875

Keywords

Search

Navigation