Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bone mineral density measurement in the calcaneus with DXL: comparison with hip and spine measurements in a cross-sectional study of an elderly female population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between calcaneal and axial bone mineral density in an elderly female population. We also investigated the influence of changing the reference populations on T-score values. Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined in 388 women (mean age 73 years) participating in a cross-sectional study. BMD values were determined at the left hip and the lumbar spine, L1–L4, using Hologic QDR 4500 equipment for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The calcaneal measurements were made with DEXA-T, a device using a dual X-ray and laser (DXL) technique that combines DXA measurement with measurement of the heel thickness using a laser reflection technique. DEXA-T is an older version of the Calscan DXL device now commercially available. T-score values were calculated for hip measurements with both the original reference population of the Hologic device and the NHANES III reference population. T scores for heel measurements were calculated with the original reference population of the peripheral device and the Calscan database, a new calcaneal reference population. Changing the reference populations had a great influence on both the heel and the hip T scores, especially those of the femoral neck where the percentage of subjects identified as osteoporotic decreased from 53% to 23%. We conclude that, with the NHANES III and the larger Calscan database, using the cut-off point of −2.5 SD, the heel measurements had optimal accuracy for detecting osteoporosis at either the combination of the lumbar spine and the femoral neck or the combination of the lumbar spine, the femoral neck, the total hip and the trochanter. BMD measurements of the calcaneus with DXL correlated fairly well with measurements at axial sites at the group level, while in individual subjects large deviations were observed between all the measured sites. We also conclude that the influence of the reference populations on the T scores is substantial when different DXA methods are being compared; the total number of subjects classified as osteoporotic varied from 7% to 53% between the sites and with different reference populations.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnell O, Gullberg B, Allander E, Kanis JA (1992) The apparent incidence of hip fracture in Europe: a study of national register sources. MEDOS Study Group. Osteoporos Int 2:298–302

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensrud K, Genant HK, Palermo L, Scott J, Vogt TM (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 341:72–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng S, Suominen H, Sakari-Rantala R, Laukkanen P, Avikainen V, Heikkinen E (1997) Calcaneal bone mineral density predicts fracture occurrence: a five- year follow-up study in elderly people. J Bone Miner Res 12:1075–1082

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E, Faulkner KG, Wehren LE, Abbott TA, Berger ML, Santora AC, Sherwood LM (2001) Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. JAMA 286:2815–2822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM (2002) Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review. JAMA 288:1889–1897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrun LK, Vogel JM (1987) Selection of the optimal skeletal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop 216:262–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Swanpalmer J, Kullenberg R (2000) A new measuring device for quantifying the amount of mineral in the heel bone. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904:115–117

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bolotin HH, Sievanen H, Grashuis JL, Kuiper JW, Jarvinen TL (2001) Inaccuracies inherent in patient-specific dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone mineral density measurements: comprehensive phantom-based evaluation. J Bone Miner Res 16:417–426

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hakulinen MA, Saarakkala S, Toyras J, Kroger H, Jurvelin JS (2003) Dual energy X-ray laser measurement of calcaneal bone mineral density. Phys Med Biol 48:1741–1752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diessel E, Fuerst T, Njeh CF, Hans D, Cheng S, Genant HK (2000) Comparison of an imaging heel quantitative ultrasound device (DTU-one) with densitometric and ultrasonic measurements. Br J Radiol 73:23–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fordham JN, Chinn DJ, Kumar N (2000) Identification of women with reduced bone density at the lumbar spine and femoral neck using BMD at the os calcis. Osteoporos Int 11:797–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Langton CM, Langton DK (2000) Comparison of bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: site-matched correlation and discrimination of axial BMD status. Br J Radiol 73:31–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sweeney AT, Malabanan AO, Blake MA, Weinberg J, Turner A, Ray P, Holick MF (2002) Bone mineral density assessment: comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements at the calcaneus, spine, and hip. J Clin Densitom 5:57–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kullenberg R (2003) Reference database for dual X-ray and laser Calscan bone densitometer. J Clin Densitom 6:367–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP, Johnston CC Jr, Lindsay RL (1995) Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 5:389–409

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen Z, Maricic M, Lund P, Tesser J, Gluck O (1998) How the new Hologic hip normal reference values affect the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 8:423–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Löfman O, Larsson L, Ross I, Toss G, Berglund K (1997) Bone mineral density in normal Swedish women. Bone 20:167–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva

  21. Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Williams ED, Daymond TJ (2003) Evaluation of calcaneus bone densitometry against hip and spine for diagnosis of osteoporosis. Br J Radiol 76:123–128

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kullenberg R, Falch JA (2003) Prevalence of osteoporosis using bone mineral measurements at the calcaneus by dual X-ray and laser (DXL). Osteoporos Int 14:823–827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P (1999) Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom 2:343–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, Oglesby A, Jonsson B (2002) Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis. Bone 31:26–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller PD, Njeh, Jankowski LG, Lenchik L (2002) What are the standards by which bone mass measurement at peripheral skeletal sites should be used in the diagnosis of osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom [5 Suppl]:S39–45

  27. Kanis JA, Gluer CC (2000) An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from Stockholm County Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Family Medicine, Alfred Nobels allé 12, 14183, Huddinge, Sweden

    H. Salminen

  2. Center of Family Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    H. Salminen & L.-E. Strender

  3. Department of Molecular Medicine, Endocrine and Diabetes Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden

    M. Sääf

  4. Department of Surgical Sciences, Section for Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    H. Ringertz

Authors
  1. H. Salminen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Sääf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Ringertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L.-E. Strender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Salminen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salminen, H., Sääf, M., Ringertz, H. et al. Bone mineral density measurement in the calcaneus with DXL: comparison with hip and spine measurements in a cross-sectional study of an elderly female population. Osteoporos Int 16, 541–551 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1719-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1719-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation