Clin Osteol 2004; 9(2): 44-53

Densitometry: most common errors and artefactsArticles

V. Vyskočil

The author discusses double-photon densitometry, the most accurate and sensitive method of establishing the content of minerals in the skeleton and of monitoring its changes. He describes the most frequent errors and artefacts, which can substantially affect the interpretation of results and even render them completely useless. Besides degenerative changes during the aging of the body we find calcifications and anatomical and other skeletal changes connected with some diseases. Artefacts that are not frequently mentioned include errors in positioning or errors of the operator or of the la­ boratory assistant or nurse carrying out the actual examination. For interpretation we should know even very small significant changes of the appara­ tus; the personnel carrying out the examination should have sufficient anatomical and medical knowledge, including knowledge of all factors that could affect the results of measurement and either over- or underestimate the results of monitoring of treatment.

Keywords: double-photon X-ray absorptiometry, region of interest, positioning of the extremity

Published: December 11, 2004  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vyskočil V. Densitometry: most common errors and artefacts. Osteologický bulletin. 2004;9(2):44-53.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Faulkner KG, McClung MR, Rupich RC. Quality control of DXA Instruments in multi-center trias. page 27, February 1995.
    2. World Health Organization (1994) Assesmnent of fracture risk and its ap to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical Report Series. Geneva WHO.
    3. Faulkner K. Manual of Clinical Densitometry, Portland 1996.
    4. Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Vrahoriti H, et al. Embryo/fetus radiation dose from dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:716-22. Go to original source...
    5. Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD. Ability of vertebral dimensions from a single radiograph to identify fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;51:95-9. Go to original source...
    6. Nevitt MC, Lane NE, Scott JC, et al. Radiographic osteoarthritis of the hip and ne mineral density. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:539-542. Go to original source...
    7. Frye MA, Melton LJ, Bryant SC, et al. Osteoporosis and calcification of the aor­ ta. Bone Miner 1992;19:185-194. Go to original source...
    8. Štěpán J, Šmíd M, Prokeš M, et al. Ekonomické aspekty osteoporózy Čas Lék Česk 1998;137:707-15.
    9. Cooper C. Femoral neck bone density and fracture risk. Osteoporosis Int 1996;6(Suppl 3):24-26. Go to original source...
    10. Suman VJ, Atkinson EJ, OTallon WM, et al. A nomogram for predicting lifetime hip fracture risk from radius bone mineral density and age. Bone 1993;14:843-846. Go to original source...
    11. Cummings SR. Are patients with hip fractures more osteoporotic? Am J of Med 1985;78:487-494. Go to original source...
    12. Lotz JC, Cheal EJ, Hayes WC. Stress distributions within the proximal femur du­ ring gait and falls: implications for osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5:252-61. Go to original source...
    13. Laval-Jeantet AM, Genant HK, Wu CY, et al. Factors influencing long-term in vi­ vo reproducibility of QCT vertebral densitometry. J Comput Assist Tomog 1993;17:915-921. Go to original source...
    14. Pande I, O'Neill TW, Pritchard C, et al. Bone mineral density, hip axis length risk of hip fracture in men: results from the Cornwall Hip Fracture Study. Osteo­ poros Int 2000;11:866-870. Go to original source...
    15. Cheng XG, Nicholson PHF, Booncn S, et al. Effects of anteversion on femoral bo­ ne mineral density and geometry measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cadaver study. Bone 1997;21:113-117. Go to original source...
    16. Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisi L, et al. Proximal femur geometry to detect and di­ stinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporosis Int 2002;13:69-73. Go to original source...
    17. Gomez AC, Diaz CM, Hawkins CF, et al. Multicenter Project for research in os­ teoporosis Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral ne­ ck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:714-720. Go to original source...
    18. Goerres G, Theiler R, Muller-Brand J. Interfemur variation of bone mineral den­ sity in patients receiving high-dose thyroxine therapy. Calcif Tissue Int 1998;63:98-101. Go to original source...
    19. Hall ML, Heavens J, Ell PJ. Variation between femurs as measured by dual ener­ gy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Eur J Nucl Med 1991;18:38^0. Go to original source...
    20. Rao AD, Reddy S, Rao DS. Is there a difference between right and left femoral bone density ? J Clin Densitometry 2000;3:57-61. Go to original source...
    21. Lochmuller EM, Lill CA, Kuhn V, et al. Radius bone strength in bending, com­ pression, and falling and its correlati tes. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:1629-38. Go to original source...

    Return to the content


    Clinical Osteology

    Madam, Sir,
    please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
    Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

    I declare:

    1. that I have met the above instruction
    2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited

    No
    Yes

    If your statement is not true, please be aware
    that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.