» Articles » PMID: 8338975

Influence of Patient's Weight on Dual-photon Absorptiometry and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry Measurements of Bone Mineral Density

Overview
Journal Osteoporos Int
Date 1993 Jul 1
PMID 8338975
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Hologic QDR 1000) and by 153Gd dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) (Novo Lab 22a) in 120 postmenopausal women. Though a high correlation existed between the two techniques, the ratio between DXA and DPA values was not constant. Using DXA we observed a higher dependence of BMD on weight than in the DPA measurements. To investigate the different behaviour of DXA and DPA machines with weight, we analysed the effects of increasing thickness of soft tissue equivalents on the BMD of the Hologic spine phantom and on the BMD equivalent of an aluminium standard tube. Increasing tissue-equivalent thickness caused the phantom BMD measured by DPA to decrease significantly but had not effect on the DXA measurements. The different behaviour of DPA and DXA equipment with regard to the phantoms could account for the differences observed in the relations between BMD and weight in the patients. Using multiple regression we studied the influence of weight and body mass index on the relation between BMD measured by the two techniques. The introduction of either of these variables into the regression resulted in an improvement of the prediction of the DXA values from the DPA values. However, the residual standard error of the estimate was still higher than the combined precision errors of the two methods, so that no simple relation allows a conversion of BMDDPA into BMDDXA. Our results confirm that BMD is positively correlated with weight in postmenopausal women; the influence of weight on BMD is blunted when the Novo Lab 22a DPA machine is used for measuring bone mineral.

Citing Articles

Bone mineral status in paraplegic patients who do or do not perform standing.

Goemaere S, Van Laere M, De Neve P, Kaufman J Osteoporos Int. 1994; 4(3):138-43.

PMID: 8069052 DOI: 10.1007/BF01623058.


Quantitative ultrasound bone measurements: normal values and comparison with bone mineral density by dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Moris M, Peretz A, Tjeka R, Negaban N, Wouters M, Bergmann P Calcif Tissue Int. 1995; 57(1):6-10.

PMID: 7671166 DOI: 10.1007/BF00298988.

References
1.
Mazess R, Peppler W, Chesney R, Lange T, Lindgren U, Smith Jr E . Does bone measurement on the radius indicate skeletal status? Concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1984; 25(3):281-8. View

2.
Genant H, Steiger P, Block J, Glueer C, Ettinger B, Harris S . Quantitative computed tomography: update 1987. Calcif Tissue Int. 1987; 41(4):179-86. DOI: 10.1007/BF02555236. View

3.
Strause L, Bracker M, Saltman P, Sartoris D, Kerr E . A comparison of quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int. 1989; 45(5):288-91. DOI: 10.1007/BF02556021. View

4.
Dunn W, Kan S, Wahner H . Errors in longitudinal measurements of bone mineral: effect of source strength in single and dual photon absorptiometry. J Nucl Med. 1987; 28(11):1751-7. View

5.
Sartoris D, Resnick D . Dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry for bone densitometry: current status and perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989; 152(2):241-6. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.152.2.241. View