» Articles » PMID: 35937936

Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) to Measure Bone Mineral Density (BMD) for Diagnosis of Osteoporosis - Experimental Data from Artificial Vertebrae Confirms Significant Dependence on Bone Size

Overview
Journal Bone Rep
Date 2022 Aug 8
PMID 35937936
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The WHO definition of osteoporosis, and published BMD (Bone Mineral Density) references ranges, do not consider differences in bone size. Because it is a two-dimensional technique, and cannot measure bone depth, aBMD (areal BMD) measured using DXA (Dual-energy X-Ray Absorptiometry) is affected by bone size variability. Mathematical models have been devised to correct aBMD for bone size, but these are confounded by variations in soft tissue surrounding bone. Confirmation of the actual quantitative effect on clinical results for patients requires precise changes in bone size and mineral density, but studies of humans and animals are limited by the inability to precisely control these in natural bones.

Purpose: The objectives of this experiment were to obtain precise, repeatable, quantitative data from sets of artificial vertebrae to confirm the dependence of aBMD on bone size in clinical practice, and to test the effect of applying corrections based on assumptions that the vertebrae were simple geometric shapes to produce corrected BMAD (Bone Mineral Apparent Density).

Methods And Materials: Four sets of artificial bones, each set containing four cylinders of different diameters but identical in height, were constructed by casting a mixture of epoxy resin and calcium carbonate powder into a mould. The cylinders were considered to be artificial vertebrae L1 to L4 so that all four in a set may be tested in a single scan. The X-Ray attenuation of the material used was varied between the sets, to represent differences in BMD. Each set of vertebrae was inserted into a soft-tissue analogue and DXA scanned, in the anteroposterior position, with the GE Lunar Prodigy and the Hologic Discovery.

Results: The results verify the theoretical direct proportionality between aBMD and diameter, confirming that aBMD is significantly affected by bone size. Applying a BMAD correction, by assuming the vertebrae to be cylinders, reduced the effect of change in bone diameter by approximately two orders of magnitude to an insignificant level.

Conclusion: This experiment has confirmed that BMD measured using DXA, accepted in clinical practice as the means of diagnosing osteoporosis, could lead to misdiagnosis because it is significantly affected by differences in bone size.

Citing Articles

Radiomic-based biomarkers: Transforming age and body composition metrics into personalized age-informed indices.

Alikhani R, Horbal S, Rothberg A, Pai M Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 17(12):e70062.

PMID: 39644153 PMC: 11624483. DOI: 10.1111/cts.70062.


Comparative Evaluation of Osteoporosis Clinical Risk Assessment Tools in Postmenopausal Women Aged 50-64.

Chlapoutakis K, Baltas C, Galanos A, Froudaki M, Balanika A J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2024; 24(4):377-384.

PMID: 39616507 PMC: 11609562.


The effect of brace treatment history on bone density in preoperative patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) assessed by vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

Wang J, Zhu C, Ai Y, Huang Y, Chen Q, Ding H BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):682.

PMID: 39210326 PMC: 11363544. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07784-5.


The Biomechanics of Musculoskeletal Tissues during Activities of Daily Living: Dynamic Assessment Using Quantitative Transmission-Mode Ultrasound Techniques.

Wearing S, Hooper S, Langton C, Keiner M, Horstmann T, Crevier-Denoix N Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(13).

PMID: 38998789 PMC: 11241410. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12131254.

References
1.
Faulkner R, McCulloch R, Fyke S, De Coteau W, McKay H, Bailey D . Comparison of areal and estimated volumetric bone mineral density values between older men and women. Osteoporos Int. 1995; 5(4):271-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF01774017. View

2.
Valero C, Olmos J, Humbert L, Castillo J, Hernandez J, Martinez J . 3D analysis of bone mineral density in a cohort: age- and sex-related differences. Arch Osteoporos. 2021; 16(1):80. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00921-w. View

3.
Carter D, Bouxsein M, Marcus R . New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res. 1992; 7(2):137-45. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650070204. View

4.
Baroncelli G, Bertelloni S, Ceccarelli C, Saggese G . Measurement of volumetric bone mineral density accurately determines degree of lumbar undermineralization in children with growth hormone deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998; 83(9):3150-4. DOI: 10.1210/jcem.83.9.5072. View

5.
Kroger H, Vainio P, Nieminen J, Kotaniemi A . Comparison of different models for interpreting bone mineral density measurements using DXA and MRI technology. Bone. 1995; 17(2):157-9. DOI: 10.1016/s8756-3282(95)00162-x. View