Measurements of bone mineral density of the proximal femur by two commercially available dual energy X-ray absorptiometric systems.

作者: OleLander Svendsen , Ulla Marslew , Christian Hassager , Claus Christiansen

DOI: 10.1007/BF00178307

关键词:

摘要: Two dual energy X-ray absorptiometric (DXA) instruments have recently become commercially available for local bone densitometry: the QDR-1000 (Hologic Inc.) and DPX (Lunar Radiation Corp.). We report precision, influence of femoral rotation, correlation agreement mineral measurements proximal femur by these two instruments. In vitro (femur phantom) short-term precision was 1.1%–3.5%, long-term 1.2%–3.8%. vivo (groups 10 premenopausal postmenopausal women) duplicate 1.6%–4.7%, 1.9%–5.5%. Overall, Ward's triangle over 3% that neck trochanter, 2%–3%. Rotation a phantom produced statistically significant change in density (BMD) neck. Within clinically relevant range rotation (20° inward ±5°) coefficient variation (CV%) increased mean factor 1.1–1.4. Although (r < 0.9) between BMD 30 women high, there lack found no differences right left women. A bilateral scan took total time about 22 min. conclude with introduction DXA instruments, has improved. However, comparability it might be advantageous if units were standardized.

参考文章(15)
HEINZ W. WAHNER, WILLIAM L. DUNN, MANUEL L. BROWN, RICHARD L. MORIN, B. LAWRENCE RIGGS, Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine. Mayo Clin., Proc.; (United States). ,vol. 63, pp. 1075- 1084 ,(1988) , 10.1016/S0025-6196(12)65502-5
C C Glüer, P Steiger, R Selvidge, K Elliesen-Kliefoth, C Hayashi, H K Genant, Comparative assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography. Radiology. ,vol. 174, pp. 223- 228 ,(1990) , 10.1148/RADIOLOGY.174.1.2294552
Richard Mazess, Bruce Collick, Joel Trempe, Howard Barden, James Hanson, Performance evaluation of a dual-energy X-ray bone densitometer Calcified Tissue International. ,vol. 44, pp. 228- 232 ,(1989) , 10.1007/BF02556569
T. L. KELLY, D. M. SLOVIK, D. A. SCHOENFELD, R. M. NEER, Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. ,vol. 67, pp. 839- 844 ,(1988) , 10.1210/JCEM-67-4-839
J. Martin Bland, DouglasG. Altman, Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. ,vol. 327, pp. 307- 310 ,(1986) , 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
C. Hassager, S. B. Jensen, A. Gotfredsen, C. Christiansen, The impact of measurement errors on the diagnostic value of bone mass measurements: Theoretical considerations Osteoporosis International. ,vol. 1, pp. 250- 256 ,(1991) , 10.1007/BF03187470
Linda Strause, Mark Bracker, Paul Saltman, David Sartoris, Erin Kerr, A comparison of quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine in postmenopausal women. Calcified Tissue International. ,vol. 45, pp. 288- 291 ,(1989) , 10.1007/BF02556021
D. O. Slosman, R. Rizzoli, B. Buchs, F. Piana, A. Donath, J. -P. Bonjour, Comparative study of the performances of X-ray and gadolinium 153 bone densitometers at the level of the spine, femoral neck and femoral shaft European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. ,vol. 17, pp. 3- 9 ,(1990) , 10.1007/BF00819396
James A. Sorenson, Peter R. Duke, Steven W. Smith, Simulation studies of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry Medical Physics. ,vol. 16, pp. 75- 80 ,(1989) , 10.1118/1.596405
Charles R. Wilson, Ignac Fogelman, Glen M. Blake, Adam Rodin, The effect of positioning on dual energy X-ray bone densitometry of the proximal femur Bone and Mineral. ,vol. 13, pp. 69- 75 ,(1991) , 10.1016/0169-6009(91)90051-Z