B Oldroyd1, A H Smith, J G Truscott. 1. Centre for Bone and Body Composition Research, University of Leeds, UK. bo@medphysics.leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In vitro and in vivo comparisons of bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition between GE/Lunar pencil (DPXL) and fan-beam (PRODIGY) absorptiometers. DESIGN: Comparison of BMD, bone mineral content (BMC) and area of lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck and total body. Total body composition compartments tissue (TBTissue), fat (TBF), lean tissue (TBLean) and %TBF were also compared. SETTING: Centre for Bone and Body Composition Research, University of Leeds. PHANTOMS/ SUBJECTS: A range of spine phantoms, a variable composition phantom (VCP) and total body phantom. A total of 72 subjects were included for the in vivo study. RESULTS: In vitro: A small significant underestimation of BMD by the Prodigy compared to the DPXL ranging from 0.7 to 2% (p<0.05-0.001) for the spine phantoms. The Prodigy underestimated the VCP %Fat. Although the Prodigy underestimated phantom TBBMD by 1.1+/-1.0%, TBBMC and area were reduced by 8.2+/-1.4 and 7.3+/-1.0%, respectively. The Prodigy overestimated TBTissue 1508 g (2.2%), TBLean 588 g (1.2%), TBF 919 g (4.8%) and %TBF (0.8%). In vivo: BMD cross-calibration was only required in the femoral neck, DPXL(BMD)=0.08+0.906*PRODIGY(BMD). The Prodigy had higher estimates for TBTissue 1360 g (2.3%), TBLean 840 g (2.0%), TBF 519 g (3.4%), TBBMC 32.8 g (1.3%) and %TBF (0.3%). Cross-calibration equations were required for TBTissue(DPXL)=-1158+0.997*TBTissue(PRODIGY) and TBBMC(DPXL)= 89.7+0.949*TBBMC(PRODIGY). CONCLUSIONS: Small differences between the two absorptiometers for both BMD and body composition can be made compatible by use of cross-calibration equations and factors. The discrepancy in body composition compartments requires further research.
OBJECTIVE: In vitro and in vivo comparisons of bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition between GE/Lunar pencil (DPXL) and fan-beam (PRODIGY) absorptiometers. DESIGN: Comparison of BMD, bone mineral content (BMC) and area of lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck and total body. Total body composition compartments tissue (TBTissue), fat (TBF), lean tissue (TBLean) and %TBF were also compared. SETTING: Centre for Bone and Body Composition Research, University of Leeds. PHANTOMS/ SUBJECTS: A range of spine phantoms, a variable composition phantom (VCP) and total body phantom. A total of 72 subjects were included for the in vivo study. RESULTS: In vitro: A small significant underestimation of BMD by the Prodigy compared to the DPXL ranging from 0.7 to 2% (p<0.05-0.001) for the spine phantoms. The Prodigy underestimated the VCP %Fat. Although the Prodigy underestimated phantom TBBMD by 1.1+/-1.0%, TBBMC and area were reduced by 8.2+/-1.4 and 7.3+/-1.0%, respectively. The Prodigy overestimated TBTissue 1508 g (2.2%), TBLean 588 g (1.2%), TBF 919 g (4.8%) and %TBF (0.8%). In vivo: BMD cross-calibration was only required in the femoral neck, DPXL(BMD)=0.08+0.906*PRODIGY(BMD). The Prodigy had higher estimates for TBTissue 1360 g (2.3%), TBLean 840 g (2.0%), TBF 519 g (3.4%), TBBMC 32.8 g (1.3%) and %TBF (0.3%). Cross-calibration equations were required for TBTissue(DPXL)=-1158+0.997*TBTissue(PRODIGY) and TBBMC(DPXL)= 89.7+0.949*TBBMC(PRODIGY). CONCLUSIONS: Small differences between the two absorptiometers for both BMD and body composition can be made compatible by use of cross-calibration equations and factors. The discrepancy in body composition compartments requires further research.
Authors: Jordan R Moon; Joan M Eckerson; Sarah E Tobkin; Abbie E Smith; Christopher M Lockwood; Ashley A Walter; Joel T Cramer; Travis W Beck; Jeffrey R Stout Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: David R Gagnon; Robert R McLean; Marian T Hannan; L Adrienne Cupples; Mary Hogan; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Ae Ja Park; Jee-Hye Choi; Hyun Kang; Ki Jeong Park; Ha Young Kim; Seo Hwa Kim; Deog-Yoon Kim; Seung-Hwan Park; Yong-Chan Ha Journal: J Bone Metab Date: 2015-05-31
Authors: J-Y Hwang; S-Y Kim; S H Lee; G S Kim; M J Go; S E Kim; H-C Kim; H-D Shin; B L Park; T-H Kim; J M Hong; E K Park; H-L Kim; J-Y Lee; J-M Koh Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M A H den Hoed; B C Klap; M L te Winkel; R Pieters; M van Waas; S J C M M Neggers; A M Boot; K Blijdorp; W van Dorp; S M F Pluijm; M M van den Heuvel-Eibrink Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 4.507