OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a single L1 density threshold can be used to screen all patients undergoing CT at a busy tertiary referral centre for those at risk of osteoporosis. METHODS: 200 patients, who had been randomly selected for an audit of CT reporting of incidental vertebral fractures, had their L1 density measured on 864 routine CT examinations. These had been performed with a variety of kVp and intravenous (i.v.) contrast protocols, reflecting the wide range of imaging indications. RESULTS: L1 density measured on thick axial, thin axial or sagittal images had an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (0.996). For the same patients imaged twice within 6 months, there was mean intraexamination L1 density difference of 27.5 HU. Variability due to i.v. contrast medium administration resulted in a mean difference of 24.5 HU. Mean difference due to acquisition kVp was 24.1 HU. Once matched for sex, age, kVp and i.v. contrast, there was a significant difference between the L1 density in patients with vertebral fractures compared to those without fractures (mean 30.19 HU). CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the L1 vertebral body CT density due to differences in acquisition variables such as kVp and timing post-i.v. contrast medium. Advances in knowledge: Previous studies suggested that L1 CT density could be used to screen for osteoporosis. The current study cautions that it is not possible to define a single L1 density threshold for screening, due to the number of variables within a wide range of scanning protocols for different imaging indications in everyday practice.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a single L1 density threshold can be used to screen all patients undergoing CT at a busy tertiary referral centre for those at risk of osteoporosis. METHODS: 200 patients, who had been randomly selected for an audit of CT reporting of incidental vertebral fractures, had their L1 density measured on 864 routine CT examinations. These had been performed with a variety of kVp and intravenous (i.v.) contrast protocols, reflecting the wide range of imaging indications. RESULTS: L1 density measured on thick axial, thin axial or sagittal images had an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (0.996). For the same patients imaged twice within 6 months, there was mean intraexamination L1 density difference of 27.5 HU. Variability due to i.v. contrast medium administration resulted in a mean difference of 24.5 HU. Mean difference due to acquisition kVp was 24.1 HU. Once matched for sex, age, kVp and i.v. contrast, there was a significant difference between the L1 density in patients with vertebral fractures compared to those without fractures (mean 30.19 HU). CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the L1 vertebral body CT density due to differences in acquisition variables such as kVp and timing post-i.v. contrast medium. Advances in knowledge: Previous studies suggested that L1 CT density could be used to screen for osteoporosis. The current study cautions that it is not possible to define a single L1 density threshold for screening, due to the number of variables within a wide range of scanning protocols for different imaging indications in everyday practice.
Authors: Osa Emohare; Amanda Cagan; Robert Morgan; Rick Davis; Martin Asis; Julie Switzer; David W Polly Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2014-06
Authors: Klaus Engelke; Judith E Adams; Gabriele Armbrecht; Peter Augat; Cesar E Bogado; Mary L Bouxsein; Dieter Felsenberg; Masako Ito; Sven Prevrhal; Didier B Hans; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Esther Pompe; Martin J Willemink; Gawein R Dijkhuis; Harald J J Verhaar; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Lawrence J Lee; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Travis Lauder; Richard J Bruce; Ron M Summers; B Dustin Pooler; Neil Binkley Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; B Dustin Pooler; Travis Lauder; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Richard J Bruce; Neil Binkley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dennis S Meredith; Joseph J Schreiber; Fadi Taher; Frank P Cammisa; Federico P Girardi Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Esther Pompe; Pim A de Jong; Werner U de Jong; Richard A P Takx; Anouk L M Eikendal; Martin J Willemink; Matthijs Oudkerk; Ricardo P J Budde; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tim Kobes; Arthur Sweet; Sophie Verstegen; Marijn Houwert; Wouter Veldhuis; Luke Leenen; Pim de Jong; Mark van Baal Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-16