Literature DB >> 15007615

Differences between the right and the left foot in calcaneal quantitative ultrasound measurements.

Aydan Oral1, Ayşe Yaliman, Dilşad Sindel.   

Abstract

A total of 621 women, aged 30-80 years, who were grouped according to having single (group 1) or duplicate measurements of their both calcanei with quantitative ultrasound (QUS) on the same day (group 2) or on a different day than the first measurement (group 3) were evaluated for differences between the right and left foot. Despite similar mean values of QUS indices on both sides, individual percentage differences were found varying from 7.3 to 9.5% in the quantitative ultrasound index (QUI), from 11.1 to 12.5% in broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), from 0.62 to 0.86% in speed of sound (SOS) and from 8.9 to 10.9% in estimated heel bone mineral density as measured using the Sahara Clinical Bone Sonometer in three groups of subjects. The percentage of subjects with a proportional difference exceeding the coefficient of variation of duplicate measurements of the same heel was the highest for BUA, varying from 63 to 76.7%, and ranged between 43.1 and 76.7% in other QUS indices. We conclude that there is a real inter-individual difference between the right and left foot in QUS parameters, whether measured once or twice or on different occasions. We recommend measuring both sides when using QUS to avoid misleading implications regarding a subject's bone status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15007615     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2273-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  28 in total

1.  Broadband ultrasound attenuation imaging: influence of location of region of measurement.

Authors:  J Damilakis; A Papadakis; K Perisinakis; N Gourtsoyiannis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Discriminatory ability of quantitative ultrasound parameters and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women with vertebral fractures: results of the Basel Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  F Hartl; A Tyndall; M Kraenzlin; C Bachmeier; C Gückel; U Senn; D Hans; R Theiler
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Comparison of six calcaneal quantitative ultrasound devices: precision and hip fracture discrimination.

Authors:  C F Njeh; D Hans; J Li; B Fan; T Fuerst; Y Q He; E Tsuda-Futami; Y Lu; C Y Wu; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Bone densitometry in children: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  R R van Rijn; I M van der Sluis; T M Link; S Grampp; G Guglielmi; H Imhof; C Glüer; J E Adams; C van Kuijk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-09-11       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Bilateral variation in radial bone speed of sound.

Authors:  H Vrahoriti; J Damilakis; G Papadokostakis; A Hadjipavlou; N Gourtsoyiannis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Ultrasound measurements of the os calcis. Side differences and prediction of bone density in 39 persons.

Authors:  N Kolthoff; P Eiken; O Bärenholdt; S P Nielsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1995-06

7.  How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  K Lippuner; G Fuchs; A G Ruetsche; R Perrelet; J P Casez; I Neto
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Bilateral variation in calcaneal broadband ultrasound attenuation: part I.

Authors:  I P Drysdale; H J Hinkley; N J Walters; M L Shale; D Bird
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Is there a difference between right and left femoral bone density?

Authors:  A D Rao; S Reddy; D S Rao
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  Reference data in a Swiss population. Discordance in patient classification using T-scores among calcaneum, spine, and femur.

Authors:  D Hans; R Rizzoli; D Thiébaud; K Lippuner; S Allaoua; L Genton; F Luzuy; M A Krieg; P Jaeger; D O Slosman
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  4 in total

1.  Digital X-ray radiogrammetry better identifies osteoarthritis patients with a low bone mineral density than quantitative ultrasound.

Authors:  Gerhard W Goerres; Diana Frey; Thomas F Hany; Burkhardt Seifert; Hans Jörg Häuselmann; Annina Studer; Dagmar Hauser; Nathalie Zilic; Beat A Michel; Didier Hans; Daniel Uebelhart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Contralateral differences in quantitative ultrasound of the heel: the importance of side in clinical practice.

Authors:  Faidon Magkos; Yannis Manios; Eirini Babaroutsi; Labros S Sidossis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  The Lichfield bone study: the skeletal response to exercise in healthy young men.

Authors:  Kyriacos I Eleftheriou; Jaikirty S Rawal; Anthony Kehoe; Laurence E James; John R Payne; James R Skipworth; Zudin A Puthucheary; Fotios Drenos; Dudley J Pennell; Mike Loosemore; Michael World; Steve E Humphries; Fares S Haddad; Hugh E Montgomery
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2011-11-23

4.  Discriminative ability of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in men with hip or distal forearm fractures.

Authors:  Fatih Cesme; Sina Esmaeilzadeh; Aydan Oral
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2016-09-25       Impact factor: 1.511

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.