Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by quantitative digital radiography, a new dual energy x-ray technique, and by 153Gd dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) in 85 patients. Each patient was measured twice by the new method and once by DPA on the same day, with repositioning between measurements. Serial measurements were made on an hydroxyapatite spine phantom embedded in tissue-equivalent plastic to evaluate the long term reproducibility of each instrument. The spinal BMD measurements with the 2 techniques were linearly related and highly correlated (r = 0.98) over a range from severely osteopenic to high normal. This correlation was not affected by the age, weight, or BMD of the patient measured. Quantitative digital radiography's long-term reproducibility using the spine phantom was stable for 180 days (coefficient of variation, 0.23%); DPA values were 3 times as variable for 170 days (coefficient of variation 0.73%) and increased 1.0% (P less than 0.0001) after a software change. The short term reproducibility of quantitative digital radiography, estimated from paired patient measurements, was 2-fold better than reported values for DPA and was independent of the patient's age, weight, or BMD. Measurement time by quantitative digital radiography was 5-8 min, with a maximum radiation exposure of 3 mrem, significantly lower than the corresponding DPA values. Quantitative digital radiography's image resolution was superior to that of DPA, enabling it to measure more bones. These advantages along with the elimination of 153Gd source changes and Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing requirements indicate that quantitative digital radiography is the superior method for spinal BMD measurements.

[1]  Noninvasive assessment of skeletal mass. , 1985, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[2]  H. Genant,et al.  Quantitative bone mineral analysis using dual energy computed tomography. , 1977, Investigative radiology.

[3]  R. Mazess,et al.  Influence of vertebral fat content on quantitative CT density. , 1986, Radiology.

[4]  H. Genant,et al.  Bone mineral content in early-postmenopausal and postmenopausal osteoporotic women: comparison of measurement methods. , 1986, Radiology.

[5]  S. Ott,et al.  Comparisons among methods of measuring bone mass and relationship to severity of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis. , 1988, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[6]  H W Wahner,et al.  Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal femur and spine with aging. Differences between the postmenopausal and senile osteoporosis syndromes. , 1982, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[7]  R M Neer,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography for spinal density measurement. Factors affecting precision. , 1985, Investigative radiology.

[8]  A. Leblanc,et al.  Precision of dual photon absorptiometry measurements. , 1986, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  B. Riggs,et al.  Assessment of bone mineral. Part 1. , 1984, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  C. Christiansen,et al.  Does calcium supplementation prevent postmenopausal bone loss? A double-blind, controlled clinical study. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Mazess,et al.  Dual-photon Gd-153 absorptiometry of bone. , 1985, Radiology.

[12]  K.,et al.  Differential changes in bone mineral density of the appendicular and axial skeleton with aging: relationship to spinal osteoporosis. , 1981, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[13]  S. Pors Nielsen,et al.  Measurement of bone mineral content (BMC) of the lumbar spine, I. Theory and application of a new two-dimensional dual-photon attenuation method. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.