Literature DB >> 2019280

Variation between femurs as measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

M L Hall1, J Heavens, P J Ell.   

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that there is minimal variation between the hips in an individual, but is densitometry of one femur representative of the other? We performed bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of both hips using a Hologic QDR 1000 densitometer. There were 110 patients, all of whom were right handed, and three main groups of subjects: (1) normal volunteers (n = 36); (2) subjects with known hip pathology (n = 36); (3) subjects with medical conditions not affecting the hip (n = 38). The mean age of the subjects was 46 (21-87) years and a standard analysis protocol was followed in all patients. The coefficient of variation (COV) for femurs was 0.9-3%, depending upon the region studied and the BMD. The left femur had a greater BMD 48% of the time and there were variable differences between femurs in each group studied. While the greatest differences were found in people with unilateral hip pathology, all groups had mean differences greater than the COV. It may be acceptable to study only one hip, but the large variation between femurs in individuals should be borne in mind when interpreting data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2019280     DOI: 10.1007/bf00177683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0340-6997


  3 in total

1.  Effect dose equivalent in dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  D W Pye; W J Hannan; R Hesp
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  The range of bone density in normal British women.

Authors:  M L Hall; J Heavens; I D Cullum; P J Ell
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  X-ray dual-photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone density.

Authors:  I D Cullum; P J Ell; J P Ryder
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 3.039

  3 in total
  14 in total

1.  Periprosthetic bone remodelling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxyapatite coating: a 3-year follow-up study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss.

Authors:  A I A Rahmy; T Gosens; G M Blake; A Tonino; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-12-06       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Comparison and investigation of bone mineral density in opposing femora by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  J Lilley; B G Walters; D A Heath; Z Drolc
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Asymmetrical hip bone density in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Rebecca D Larson; Lesley J White
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2011

4.  Effects of loading rate on strength of the proximal femur.

Authors:  A C Courtney; E F Wachtel; E R Myers; W C Hayes
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Bone mineral density in patients receiving suppressive doses of thyroxine for differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

Authors:  G Görres; A Kaim; A Otte; M Götze; J Müller-Brand
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1996-06

6.  The diagnostic role of dual femur bone density measurement in low-impact fractures.

Authors:  Joseph C H Wong; Louise McEwan; Naomi Lee; Matthew R Griffiths; Nicholas A Pocock
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Five-year DEXA study of 88 hips with cemented femoral stem.

Authors:  Georgios Digas; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The effect of cement placement on augmentation of the osteoporotic proximal femur.

Authors:  Edward G Sutter; Simon J Wall; Simon C Mears; Stephen M Belkoff
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2010-09

9.  Bilateral comparison of femoral bone density and hip axis length from single and fan beam DXA scans.

Authors:  K G Faulkner; H K Genant; M McClung
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  A biomechanical evaluation of femoroplasty under simulated fall conditions.

Authors:  Edward G Sutter; Simon C Mears; Stephen M Belkoff
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.512

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.