Literature DB >> 9240734

Correcting the magnification error of fan beam densitometers.

M R Griffiths1, K A Noakes, N A Pocock.   

Abstract

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), using a narrow pencil-shaped X-ray beam coupled to a single detector, has been used extensively. More recently, DXA using a fan- shaped X-ray beam coupled to an array of detectors has been introduced. This new generation of scanners causes an inherent magnification of scanned structures as the distance from the X-ray source decreases. This magnification, which occurs in the medial-lateral direction but not in the craniocaudal direction, does not affect bone mineral density (BMD). There are, however, significant changes of bone mineral content (BMC), bone area, and parameters of hip geometry, with varying distance of the bone scanned from the X-ray source. Variability of soft tissue thickness in vivo, by altering the distance of the skeleton from the scanning table and X-ray source, may cause clinically significant errors of BMC, bone area, and proximal femur geometry when measured using fan-beam densitometers. We analyzed the geometry of Lunar and Hologic fan beam scanners to derive equations expressing the true width of scanned structures in terms of the apparent width and machine dimensions. We also showed mathematic ally that performing an additional scan, at a different distance from the X-ray source than the first scan, provides simultaneous equations that can be solved to derive the real width of a scanned bone. This hypothesis was tested on the Lunar Expert using aluminium phantoms scanned at different table heights. There was an excellent correlation, r = 0.99 (p < 0.001), between the predicted phantom width and the measured phantom width. In conclusion, this study shows that the magnification error of fan beam DXA can be corrected using a dual scanning technique. This has important implications in the clinical usefulness of BMC and geometrical measurements obtained from these scanners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9240734     DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.1.119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  11 in total

1.  Image resolution and magnification using a cone beam densitometer: optimizing data acquisition for hip morphometric analysis.

Authors:  V Boudousq; D Mariano Goulart; J M Dinten; C Caderas de Kerleau; E Thomas; O Mares; P O Kotzki
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-10-16       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.

Authors:  Nicola J Crabtree; N J Shaw; C M Boivin; B Oldroyd; J G Truscott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Gender differences in relationships between body composition components, their distribution and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional opposite sex twin study.

Authors:  Joanna Makovey; Vasi Naganathan; Philip Sambrook
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-04-19       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Fitting of bone mineral density with consideration of anthropometric parameters.

Authors:  D F Short; B S Zemel; V Gilsanz; H J Kalkwarf; J M Lappe; S Mahboubi; S E Oberfield; J A Shepherd; K K Winer; T N Hangartner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  An in vivo comparison of hip structure analysis (HSA) with measurements obtained by QCT.

Authors:  K Ramamurthi; O Ahmad; K Engelke; R H Taylor; K Zhu; S Gustafsson; R L Prince; K E Wilson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Gender differences in volumetric bone density: a study of opposite-sex twins.

Authors:  Vasi Naganathan; Philip Sambrook
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Correcting fan-beam magnification in clinical densitometry scans of growing subjects.

Authors:  Jacqueline H Cole; Jodi N Dowthwaite; Tamara A Scerpella; Marjolein C H van der Meulen
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.617

8.  Does standardized BMD still remove differences between Hologic and GE-Lunar state-of-the-art DXA systems?

Authors:  B Fan; Y Lu; H Genant; T Fuerst; J Shepherd
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Association analyses of vitamin D-binding protein gene with compression strength index variation in Caucasian nuclear families.

Authors:  X-H Xu; D-H Xiong; X-G Liu; Y Guo; Y Chen; J Zhao; R R Recker; H-W Deng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Estimating body mass and composition from proximal femur dimensions using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  Emma Pomeroy; Veena Mushrif-Tripathy; Bharati Kulkarni; Sanjay Kinra; Jay T Stock; Tim J Cole; Meghan K Shirley; Jonathan C K Wells
Journal:  Archaeol Anthropol Sci       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 1.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.