Influence of region of interest and bone size on calcaneal BMD: implications for the accuracy of quantitative ultrasound assessments at the calcaneus
There is considerable technological diversity among quantitative ultrasound (QUS) devices used to assess osteoporosis. Because the distance between the transducer and the footplate remains constant, the location of the calcaneus measured will vary with foot size. This study was designed to quantify...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of radiology 2002, Vol.75 (889), p.59-68 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | There is considerable technological diversity among quantitative ultrasound (QUS) devices used to assess osteoporosis. Because the distance between the transducer and the footplate remains constant, the location of the calcaneus measured will vary with foot size. This study was designed to quantify the variation in bone mineral density (BMD) between a manufacturer's region of interest (ROI_M), which is fixed relative to the footplate, and an anatomical region of interest (ROI_A), which is defined as 20% of calcaneal length. The effect of foot length and width on QUS variables measured using two Food and Drug Administration cleared QUS devices, the Sahara (Hologic) and the Achilles+ (Lunar) was assessed. 26 healthy subjects (12 male and 14 female), aged 22-54 years (35.6+/-10 years) and with foot lengths of 21.5 cm to 29.7 cm (25.1+/-2.3 cm) were recruited. QUS assessments were performed at the right calcaneus. In addition, a Hologic 4500 densitometer was used to measure the BMD of the calcaneus in the ROI_M and ROI_A. The sizes of the ROIs were approximated to the sizes of the transducers of the Sahara and Achilles+ devices. The results showed a significant difference in BMD between the two ROI locations for the Sahara device (BMD 0.642+/-0.135 g cm(-2) vs 0.616+/-0.114 g cm(-2), p=0.014), but no significant difference was found in BMD between the two locations for the Achilles device (BMD 0.661+/-0.120 g cm(-2) vs 0.662+/-0.123 g cm(-2), p=0.818). At the ROI_A, there was a significant difference in BMD between the two QUS devices (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0007-1285 1748-880X |
DOI: | 10.1259/bjr.75.889.750059 |