Comparison of BMD precision for prodigy and delphi spine and femur scans

被引：61

作者：

Shepherd J.A. ^{[1
]}

Fan B. ^{[1
]}

Lu Y. ^{[1
]}

Lewiecki E.M. ^{[2
]}

Miller P. ^{[3
]}

Genant H.K. ^{[1
,4
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0946

[2] New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center, Albuquerque, NM

[3] Colorado Center for Bone Research, Lakewood, CO

[4] Synarc, Inc., San Francisco, CA

来源：

Osteoporosis International | 2006年 / 17卷 / 9期

关键词：

DXA; Least significant change; Osteoporosis; Repeatability;

D O I：

10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Introduction: Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time. Methods: We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6±8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences. Results: While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1-L4 spine (1.0% vs 1.2%), total femur (0.9% vs 1.3%), femoral neck (1.5% vs 1.9%), and dual total femur (0.6% vs 0.9%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25% compared with single femur results. Conclusions: This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient 's BMD has occurred. © International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2006.

引用

页码：1303 / 1308

页数：5

共 15 条

[1]

Riggs B.L., Wahner H.W., Melton III L.J., Rates of bone loss in the appendicular and axial skeletons of women. Evidence of substantial vertebral bone loss before menopause, Journal of Clinical Investigation, 77, 5, pp. 1487-1491, (1986)

[2]

Cummings S.R., Karpf D.B., Harris F., Genant H.K., Ensrud K., Lacroix A.Z., Black D.M., Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs, American Journal of Medicine, 112, 4, pp. 281-289, (2002)

[3]

Pocock N.A., Noakes K.A., Griffiths M., Bhalerao N., Sambrook P.N., Eisman J.A., Freund J., A comparison of longitudinal measurements in the spine and proximal femur using lunar and hologic instruments, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 12, 12, pp. 2113-2118, (1997)

[4]

Faulkner K.G., Improving femoral bone density measurements, J Clin Densitom, 6, 4, pp. 353-358, (2003)

[5]

White J., Harris S.S., Dallal G.E., Dawson-Hughes B., Precision of single vs bilateral hip bone mineral density scans, Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 6, 2, pp. 159-162, (2003)

[6]

Ellis K.J., Shypailo R.J., Bone mineral and body composition measurements: Cross-calibration of pencil-beam and fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 13, 10, pp. 1613-1618, (1998)

[7]

Tothill P., Hannan W.J., Comparisons between Hologic QDR 1000W, QDR 4500A, and Lunar Expert dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanners used for measuring total body bone and soft tissue, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 904, pp. 63-71, (2000)

[8]

Gillette-Guyonnet S., Andrieu S., Nourhashemi F., Cantet C., Grandjean H., Vellas B., Comparison of bone mineral density and body composition measurements in women obtained from two DXA instruments, Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 124, 3, pp. 317-321, (2003)

[9]

Tothill P., Avenell A., Errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine owing to fat distribution and soft tissue thickness during weight change, British Journal of Radiology, 67, 793, pp. 71-75, (1994)

[10]

Tataranni P.A., Pettitt D.J., Ravussin E., Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: Inter-machine variability, International Journal of Obesity, 20, 11, pp. 1048-1050, (1996)

← 1 2 →