OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility of imaging and analysis for bone mineral density (BMD) determination using digital computer-assisted X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR; Pronosco X-posure, version V.2, Sectra Pronosco, Denmark); to verify potential factors that influence BMD extrapolation such as tube voltage, film-focus distance (FFD), film quality and brand (Kodak T-MAT-Plus, Konika SRH, Agfa Scopix), imaging technology (conventional, digital), imaging system (Kodak, Agfa) and exposure level (mAs); and to clarify whether DXR analysis based on printouts of digital images is comparable to analysis of conventional images. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: The hand of a cadaver was X-rayed using varied parameters: 4-8 mAs, 40-52 kV, 90-130 cm FFD. Radiographs under standardised conditions were performed 10 times using a conventional machine (Philips Super 80 CP) and the printouts of a digital system (Digital Diagnost Philips Optimus) for the analysis of reproducibility. One image was scanned and analysed 10 times additionally for imaging reproducibility. RESULTS: Reliability error of the system for the imaging process using conventional radiographs-rays was 0.49% (standard conditions: 6 mAs, 40 kV, 1 m FFD), using printouts of digital images was 2.89% (4 mAs, 42 kV, 1 m FFD) and regarding the analysis process was 0.22%. BMD calculation is not affected by alterations in FFD (precision error 1.21%), mAs (0.83%) or film quality/brand (0.38%), but differs significantly depending on tube voltage (2.70%). The system was not able to analyse conventional images with tube voltages of 49/52 kV. CONCLUSION: DXR technology is stable with most of the tested parameters. Normative data should exclusively be used for calculations using similar tube voltage or correction factors. All other parameters had no significant influence on the BMD calculation. Reproducibility is high. For technical reasons it is not recommended to use the printouts of digital images for BMD determination.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility of imaging and analysis for bone mineral density (BMD) determination using digital computer-assisted X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR; Pronosco X-posure, version V.2, Sectra Pronosco, Denmark); to verify potential factors that influence BMD extrapolation such as tube voltage, film-focus distance (FFD), film quality and brand (Kodak T-MAT-Plus, Konika SRH, Agfa Scopix), imaging technology (conventional, digital), imaging system (Kodak, Agfa) and exposure level (mAs); and to clarify whether DXR analysis based on printouts of digital images is comparable to analysis of conventional images. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: The hand of a cadaver was X-rayed using varied parameters: 4-8 mAs, 40-52 kV, 90-130 cm FFD. Radiographs under standardised conditions were performed 10 times using a conventional machine (Philips Super 80 CP) and the printouts of a digital system (Digital Diagnost Philips Optimus) for the analysis of reproducibility. One image was scanned and analysed 10 times additionally for imaging reproducibility. RESULTS: Reliability error of the system for the imaging process using conventional radiographs-rays was 0.49% (standard conditions: 6 mAs, 40 kV, 1 m FFD), using printouts of digital images was 2.89% (4 mAs, 42 kV, 1 m FFD) and regarding the analysis process was 0.22%. BMD calculation is not affected by alterations in FFD (precision error 1.21%), mAs (0.83%) or film quality/brand (0.38%), but differs significantly depending on tube voltage (2.70%). The system was not able to analyse conventional images with tube voltages of 49/52 kV. CONCLUSION: DXR technology is stable with most of the tested parameters. Normative data should exclusively be used for calculations using similar tube voltage or correction factors. All other parameters had no significant influence on the BMD calculation. Reproducibility is high. For technical reasons it is not recommended to use the printouts of digital images for BMD determination.
Authors: Ansgar Malich; Martin G Freesmeyer; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Dieter Sauner; Joachim Boettcher; Alexander Petrovitch; Werner Behrendt; Werner A Kaiser Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.963
Authors: Alexander Pfeil; Julia Sommerfeld; Rosemarie Fröber; Gabriele Lehmann; Ansgar Malich; Andreas Hansch; Gunter Wolf; Joachim Böttcher Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Hans-J Mentzel; Ulrike John; Joachim Boettcher; Ansgar Malich; Alexander Pfeil; Rüdiger Vollandt; Joachim Misselwitz; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2004-12-29
Authors: Alexander Pfeil; Glenn Haugeberg; Diane M Renz; Lisa Reinhardt; Christian Jung; Marcus Franz; Gunter Wolf; Joachim Böttcher Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: Meliha C Kapetanovic; Elisabet Lindqvist; Jakob Algulin; Kjell Jonsson; Tore Saxne; Kerstin Eberhardt; Pierre Geborek Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Joachim Böttcher; Alexander Pfeil; Alexander Petrovitch; Mirco Schmidt; Anika Kramer; Max Ludwig Schäfer; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Gert Hein; Gunter Wolf; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Int J Biomed Sci Date: 2006-09