Literature DB >> 3346735

Accuracy of lumbar spine bone mineral content by dual photon absorptiometry.

A Gotfredsen1, J Pødenphant, H Nørgaard, L Nilas, V A Nielsen, C Christiansen.   

Abstract

The accuracy of measurement of the bone mineral content (BMC, g) and bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm2) of the lumbar spine by dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) was estimated by means of two different spine scanners (a Nuclear Data 2100 and a Lunar Radiation DP3). The lumbar spines of 13 cadavers were used. BMC and BMD were measured in situ and on the excised vertebrae in a solution of water/ethanol; and covered with ox muscle/porcine muscle/lard. The actual mineral weight and areal density were determined after chemical maceration, fat extraction, drying to a constant weight, ashing for 24 hr at 600 degrees C, and correction for the transverse processes. The true are was measured by parallax free X rays and planimetry. All measurements of BMC or BMD were highly interrelated (r = 0.94-0.99). The standard error of estimate (s.e.e.) of BMC in situ versus BMC in water/ethanol was 5.2%. The agreement between the BMD values of the two scanners was very good (s.e.e. = 2.9%). BMC in situ predicted the actual vertebral mineral mass with an s.e.e. of 8.1%. BMD in situ and BMD in water/ethanol predicted the actual area density with s.e.e.s of 10.3% and 5.0%, respectively. This study discloses the correlation and accuracy error of spinal DPA measurements in situ in whole cadavers versus the actual BMC and BMD. The error, which is underestimated in in vitro studies, amounts to 10%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3346735

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  9 in total

1.  Precision of dual photon absorptiometry measurements: comparison of three different methods of selection of the region of interest.

Authors:  R Valkema; R van den Berg; J A Camps; J A Blokland; S E Papapoulos; O L Bijvoet; E K Pauwels
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1989

2.  Does a single local absorptiometric bone measurement indicate the overall skeletal status? Implications for osteoporosis and osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  A Gotfredsen; B J Riis; C Christiansen; P Rødbro
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  The accuracy of volumetric bone density measurements in dual x-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  M A Sabin; G M Blake; S M MacLaughlin-Black; I Fogelman
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  Early postmenopausal diminution of forearm and spinal bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  K Bjarnason; C Hassager; P Ravn; C Christiansen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Precision and accuracy of in vivo bone mineral measurement in rats using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  S Rozenberg; J Vandromme; J Neve; A Aguilera; A Muregancuro; A Peretz; J Kinthaert; H Ham
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Postmenopausal bone loss and the risk of osteoporosis.

Authors:  C Christiansen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Bone loss in the elderly.

Authors:  J A Kanis; S Adami
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Anteroposterior and lateral spinal DXA for the assessment of vertebral body strength: comparison with hip and forearm measurement.

Authors:  K Bjarnason; C Hassager; O L Svendsen; H Stang; C Christiansen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  The impact of measurement errors on the diagnostic value of bone mass measurements: theoretical considerations.

Authors:  C Hassager; S B Jensen; A Gotfredsen; C Christiansen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.507

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.