Carmelo Messina1,2, Alessandro Poloni3, Vito Chianca4, Domenico Albano5, Luca Petruccio Piodi6, Fabio Massimo Ulivieri7, Luca Maria Sconfienza8,9. 1. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. carmelomessina.md@gmail.com. 2. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. carmelomessina.md@gmail.com. 3. Reparto di Radiologia, ASST Bergamo Est Ospedale Bolognini, Via Paderno 21, 24068, Seriate, Italy. 4. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università Federico II, Via Panzini 5, Napoli, Italy. 5. Sezione di Scienze Radiologiche, Di.Bi.Med., Università degli Studi di Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. 6. Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 7. Bone Metabolic Unit, Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 8. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 9. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) provides an indirect score of trabecular microarchitecture from lumbar spine (LS) dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Increasing soft tissue thickness artifactually reduces TBS values; we evaluated the effect of a fictitious increase of soft tissue thickness on TBS and bone mineral density (BMD) reproducibility on a phantom model. METHODS: A Hologic spine phantom was scanned with a QDR-Discovery W Hologic densitometer. Fresh pork rind layers of 5 mm were used to simulate the in-vivo soft tissues. For each scan mode (fast array [FA], array, high definition [HD]), 25 scans were consecutively performed without phantom repositioning, at 0 (no layers), 1 cm, 3 cm, and 6 cm of thickness. BMD and TBS reproducibility was calculated as the complement to 100% of least significant change. RESULTS: Both BMD and TBS reproducibility slightly decreased with increasing soft tissue; this difference was statistically significant only for BMD using HD modality (reproducibility decreased from 99.4% at baseline to 98.4% at 6-cm of thickness). TBS reproducibility was slightly lower compared to that of BMD, and ranged between 98.8% (array, 0 cm) and 97.4% (FA, 6 cm). Without taking into account manufacturer BMI optimization, we found a progressive decrease of TBS mean values with increasing soft tissue thickness. The highest TBS difference between baseline scan and 6 cm was -0.179 (-14.27%) using HD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being slightly lower than that of BMD, TBS reproducibility was not affected up to 6 cm of increasing soft tissue thickness, and was even less influenced by fat than BMD reproducibility.
PURPOSE: Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) provides an indirect score of trabecular microarchitecture from lumbar spine (LS) dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Increasing soft tissue thickness artifactually reduces TBS values; we evaluated the effect of a fictitious increase of soft tissue thickness on TBS and bone mineral density (BMD) reproducibility on a phantom model. METHODS: A Hologic spine phantom was scanned with a QDR-Discovery W Hologic densitometer. Fresh pork rind layers of 5 mm were used to simulate the in-vivo soft tissues. For each scan mode (fast array [FA], array, high definition [HD]), 25 scans were consecutively performed without phantom repositioning, at 0 (no layers), 1 cm, 3 cm, and 6 cm of thickness. BMD and TBS reproducibility was calculated as the complement to 100% of least significant change. RESULTS: Both BMD and TBS reproducibility slightly decreased with increasing soft tissue; this difference was statistically significant only for BMD using HD modality (reproducibility decreased from 99.4% at baseline to 98.4% at 6-cm of thickness). TBS reproducibility was slightly lower compared to that of BMD, and ranged between 98.8% (array, 0 cm) and 97.4% (FA, 6 cm). Without taking into account manufacturer BMI optimization, we found a progressive decrease of TBS mean values with increasing soft tissue thickness. The highest TBS difference between baseline scan and 6 cm was -0.179 (-14.27%) using HD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being slightly lower than that of BMD, TBS reproducibility was not affected up to 6 cm of increasing soft tissue thickness, and was even less influenced by fat than BMD reproducibility.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; Phantom; Precision; Reproducibility; Trabecular bone score
Authors: Michele Bandirali; Luca M Sconfienza; Alberto Aliprandi; Giovanni Di Leo; Daniele Marchelli; Fabio M Ulivieri; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Michael Lewiecki; Catherine M Gordon; Sanford Baim; Mary B Leonard; Nicholas J Bishop; Maria-Luisa Bianchi; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Craig B Langman; Horatio Plotkin; Frank Rauch; Babette S Zemel; Neil Binkley; John P Bilezikian; David L Kendler; Didier B Hans; Stuart Silverman Journal: Bone Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: A Delnevo; M Bandirali; G Di Leo; C Messina; L M Sconfienza; A Aliprandi; F M Ulivieri; F Sardanelli Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Michele Bandirali; Giovanni Di Leo; Carmelo Messina; Maria Juana Pastor Lopez; Alessandro Mai; Fabio M Ulivieri; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Gillian Mazzetti; Claudie Berger; William D Leslie; Didier Hans; Lisa Langsetmo; David A Hanley; Christopher S Kovacs; Jerrilyn C Prior; Stephanie M Kaiser; K Shawn Davison; Robert Josse; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan R Adachi; David Goltzman; Suzanne N Morin Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2016-12-26 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: N C Harvey; C C Glüer; N Binkley; E V McCloskey; M-L Brandi; C Cooper; D Kendler; O Lamy; A Laslop; B M Camargos; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; J A Kanis Journal: Bone Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Heidi J Kalkwarf; John A Shepherd; Didier Hans; Elena Gonzalez Rodriguez; Joseph M Kindler; Joan M Lappe; Sharon Oberfield; Karen K Winer; Babette S Zemel Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 6.390
Authors: C Messina; L P Piodi; L Rinaudo; I Emili; F Porro; C Buonomenna; L M Sconfienza; L Vergani; F M Ulivieri Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Marc Dauty; Pierre Menu; Baptiste Jolly; Sylvain Lambert; Bruno Rocher; Maëlle Le Bras; Adam Jirka; Pascale Guillot; Stéphane Pretagut; Alban Fouasson-Chailloux Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 6.706