Ability of peripheral DXA measurements of the forearm to predict low axial bone mineral density at menopause

Correlation between Forearm Bone Mineral Density Measured by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry and Hounsfield Units Value Measured by CT in Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to determine if the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-measured forearm bone mineral density (BMD) correlates with the Hounsfield unit (HU) values obtained from computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 164 patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine was performed. DXA was used to measure the BMD and T-scores of each patient's forearm. Lumbar CT was used to measure the CT HU values in three axial images of the L1-L4 vertebral bodies, and the average was calculated. According to the preoperative DXA T-score, they were divided into a normal group, an osteopenia group, and an osteoporosis group. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to analyze the correlations of CT HU values in L1-L4 with BMD and T-scores in the corresponding vertebral body. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to determine the CT HU thresholds between osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis groups.

RESULTS

Forearm BMD was moderately correlated with L1-L4 CT HU values (0.4 < R2 < 0.6), and the correlation coefficients (R2) were 0.552, 0.578, 0.582, and 0.577, respectively (all p < 0.001). Forearm T-scores were moderately correlated with L1-L4 CT HU values (0.4 < R2 < 0.6), and the correlation coefficients (R2) were 0.595, 0.609, 0.605, and 0.605, respectively (all p < 0.001). The thresholds of L1-L4 between the osteoporosis group (t ≤ -2.5) and the non-osteoporosis group (t > -2.5) were 110.0 HU (sensitivity 74% and specificity 76%), 112.5 HU (sensitivity 67% and 83% specificity), 92.4 HU (81% sensitivity and 70% specificity), and 98.7 HU (74% sensitivity and 78% specificity), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the moderate positive correlation between forearm DXA-measured BMD and HU values, forearm DXA provides a theoretical basis for evaluating lumbar vertebral bone mass. Preoperative forearm DXA may be useful in the formulation of surgical plans and the prevention of postoperative complications in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

Forearm T-score as a predictor of cage subsidence in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease following posterior single-segment lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has become a classic treatment modality for lumbar degenerative diseases, with cage subsidence as a potentially fatal complication due to low bone mineral density (BMD), which can be measured by forearm T-score. Hounsfield units (HU) derived from computed tomography have been a reliable method for assessing BMD.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of forearm T-score in predicting cage subsidence after PLIF compared with lumbar spine HU values.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 71 patients who underwent PLIF and divided them into cage subsidence group and nonsubsidence group. The differences in preoperative HU value and forearm T-score were compared between groups, and the correlation between cage subsidence and clinical efficacy was analyzed.

RESULTS

The subsidence rate for all 71 patients (31 men and 40 women) was 23.9%. There was no significant difference in age, sex ratio, body mass index, smoking status, follow-up time, spine BMD, and spine T-score between groups, except in the forearm T-score and lumbar spine HU values (P < 0.05). The forearm T-score (AUC, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.672-1.000) predicted cage subsidence more accurately than the mean global HU value (AUC, 0.744; 95% CI, 0.544-0.943). In logistic regression analysis, both forearm T-score and mean global HU value were found to be independent risk factors for cage subsidence (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower forearm T-scores and lower lumbar spine HU values were significantly associated with the occurrence of cage subsidence. Lower forearm T-scores indicated a higher risk of cage subsidence than lumbar spine HU values. Forearm T-score is more effective in predicting cage subsidence than spine T-score. Therefore, forearm dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry may be a fast, simple, and reliable method for predicting cage subsidence following PLIF. However, our results suggest that the degree of cage subsidence is not associated with clinical efficacy.

Bone Mineral Density of the 1/3 Radius Refines Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Correlates With Prevalent Fractures, and Enhances Fracture Risk Estimates

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the added value of 1/3 radius (1/3R) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis by spine and hip sites and its correlation with prevalent fractures and predicted fracture risk.

METHODS

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) scores for hip and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) with/without trabecular bone score were considered proxy for fracture risk. The contribution of 1/3R to risk prediction was depicted via linear regression models with FRAX score as the dependent variable-first only with central and then with radius T-score as an additional covariate. Significance of change in the explained variance was compared by F-test.

RESULTS

The study included 1453 patients, 86% women, aged 66 ± 10 years. A total of 32% (n = 471) were osteoporotic by spine/hip and 8% (n = 115) by radius only, constituting a 24.4% increase in the number of subjects defined as osteoporotic (n = 586, 40%). Prior fracture prevalence was similar among patients with osteoporosis by spine/hip (17.4%) and radius only (19.1%) (P = .77). FRAX prediction by a regression model using spine/hip T-score yielded explained variance of 51.8% and 49.9% for MOF and 39.8% and 36.4% for hip (with/without trabecular bone score adjustment, respectively). The contribution of 1/3R was statistically significant (P < .001) and slightly increased the explained variance to 52.3% and 50.4% for MOF and 40.9% and 37.4% for hip, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reclassification of BMD results according to radius measurements results in higher diagnostic output. Prior fractures were equally prevalent among patients with radius-only and classic-site osteoporosis. FRAX tool performance slightly improved by incorporating radius BMD. Whether this approach may lead to a better fracture prediction warrants further prospective evaluation.

Can radial bone mineral density predict spinal bone mineral density in patients with advanced Duchenne muscular dystrophy?

In advanced Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), patients with high bone fracture risk due to osteoporosis, it is difficult to measure spinal bone mineral density (BMD) because of maintaining proper posture. This study began with the idea that if we diagnose and manage osteoporosis by predicting spinal BMD through easily testable radial BMD, we could prevent fracture and improve quality of life in DMD patients. In 61 DMD patients aged 20 years or older who were admitted to Gangnam Severance Hospital from April 2013 to May 2015, radial BMD and spinal BMD were measured to compare their Z-scores. In 45 patients, the z-score was less than -2.0 in spinal BMD defined as osteoporosis. And the optimal range of Z-score in the radius was -5.2 to -5.0 (sensitivity 78.9%, specificity 71.4%). Only through the radius BMD, spinal BMD can be predicted and we suggest appropriate times for treatments.

The mechanical performance of cervical total disc replacements in vivo: prospective retrieval analysis of prodisc-C devices

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective retrieval analysis of Prodisc-C cervical total disc replacements (CTDRs) from 24 explanting surgeons during a 6-year period.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the in vivo mechanical performance and fixation to bone of explanted Prodisc-C CTDRs.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The nature and quantity of damage sustained by an implanted device has proven to be important in the prediction of clinical longevity. We hypothesized that retrieval analysis of the Prodisc-C will display characteristic modes of wear consistent with increased posterior angulation and translation of the functional spinal unit after resection of the discoligamentous anatomy.

METHODS

Thirty CTDRs from 29 patients (mean age, 45.1 ± 1.9; range, 31-57 yr) after a mean length of implantation of 1.0 ± 0.2 years (range, 2 d-3.5 yr) were studied. Operative level was C4-C5 in 20% (6 of 30), C5-C6 in 47% (14 of 30), C6-C7 in 20% (6 of 30), and unknown in 13% (4 of 30). Polyethylene and metallic (cobalt chrome molybdenum [CoCrMo]) components were examined using light stereo-microscopy (6X-31X), scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive x-ray analysis.

RESULTS

CTDRs were explanted for indications of axial pain (n = 9), radicular symptoms (n = 6), atraumatic loosening (n = 6), trauma (n = 5), metal allergy (n = 1), myelopathy (n = 1), hypermobility (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). Surface area of ongrowth (mean = 7.2 ± 1.4%) was not associated with operative level (P = 0.37), surgeon-reported axial pain (P = 0.56), or atraumatic loosening (P = 0.93). Burnishing consistent with metallic endplate impingement was present in 80% (24 of 30) of retrieved CTDRs, most commonly in the posterior quadrant (P < 0.001). There was no association between implant height (P = 0.19) or depth (P = 0.17) and posterior impingement. Backside wear was not observed on any of the disassembled implants (0 of 16). Third-body wear occurred in 23% (7 of 30) and the donor site was confirmed by scanning electron microscope/energy dispersive x-ray analysis to be the porous-coated surface of the CTDR.

CONCLUSION

Early clinical failures of Prodisc-C CTDRs display surface damage evidence of metal endplate-endplate impingement, most commonly posteriorly. Backside wear was not evident; however, third-body wear was found. Future studies will determine the clinical impact of these predominant modes of wear on long-term metal-on-polyethylene semiconstrained CTDR performance.

Forearm bone mineral density measurement with different scanning positions: a study in right-handed Chinese using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

The purpose of our study was to determine whether different scanning positions influence forearm bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and to evaluate the association between forearm BMDs in different scanning positions and those of other skeleton sites. The study population consisted of 30 right-handed healthy Chinese volunteers. BMD was measured with GE Lunar Prodigy at the left forearm in both sitting and supine positions, and at lumbar spine and the right femur. All subjects received repeated measurements in the same day (repositioning), and the average of repeated BMD results was used for analysis. The BMD precision errors of the nondominant forearm in the sitting and supine positions varied from 1.13% to 2.46%. There were no statistically significant differences between BMD precision errors for each region of interest (ROI) between sitting and supine positions (all the p values were greater than 0.05). When comparing BMDs on the same side in the sitting position with those in the supine position, there were significant differences at both the 1/3 radius level and in the total radius (p<0.05). The BMD values at these ROIs obtained in the supine position were lower than those in the routine sitting position. The BMDs of the ultradistal radius in the both 2 different scanning positions were significantly associated with lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, respectively. The total radius BMD in the different positions was associated with the BMD of the femoral neck. A change in body scanning position from sitting to supine will significantly influence forearm BMD results.

Bone health in healthy Indian population aged 50 years and above

One thousand six hundred healthy subjects aged more than 50 years, residing in Delhi, were evaluated for bone mineral metabolic parameters. High prevalence of osteoporosis (35.1% subjects) was observed in this population. Bone mineral density (BMD) correlated positively with body mass index (BMI) and negatively with PTH levels. No correlation was observed with serum 25(OH)D levels.

INTRODUCTION

To assess the bone health status in elderly Indians and compare peripheral DXA (pDXA) with central DXA in evaluation of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The study involved 1,600 healthy subjects more than 50 years of age residing in Delhi, India, who underwent anthropometric, biochemical, and hormonal evaluation. BMD was measured by DXA at lumbar spine, hip, and distal radius; and by pDXA at forearm and calcaneum.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety-two males and 808 postmenopausal females, with a mean age of 57.67 ± 9.46 years were evaluated. Osteoporosis was present in 35.1% subjects (M-24.6%, F-42.5%) and osteopenia in 49.5% (M-54.3%, F-44.9%). Prevalence of osteoporosis increased with age in females, but not in males. BMD at all sites, except distal radius, was positively correlated with BMI (r=0.037, p=0.14). Total body BMD was negatively correlated with alkaline phosphatase (r= -0.184, p<0.00001) and PTH levels (r= -0.099, p<0.00001), respectively. No significant correlation was observed between serum 25(OH)D levels and BMD at any site. BMD at forearm and calcaneum, measured using pDXA, showed strong positive correlation with BMD measured by central DXA. pDXA had sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 55%, and negative and positive predictive values of 89% and 52%, respectively, at T-score -2.5 at peripheral sites compared to central DXA.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of osteoporosis was observed in elderly Indian subjects. pDXA has high negative predictive value, making it a useful tool in population screening for osteoporosis.

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy

SUMMARY

We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and other tests used to select women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment. In comparative meta-analyses, we found that the accuracy of OST was similar to other tests that are based on information from the medical history. By contrast, assessment by quantitative ultrasonography at the heel was more accurate than OST in discriminating between women with high and low BMD. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous tests are suggested for triaging postmenopausal women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Previous studies suggest that OST, based on age and weight only, may be as accurate as more complex triage tests. We systematically compare the accuracy of OST and alternative triage tests in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists, and conference proceedings. Our main measure of accuracy was the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). We compared summary estimates of DOR (sDOR) for OST and alternative tests in pairwise meta-analyses by using the Moses-Littenberg approach.

RESULTS

Summary estimates of DOR for OST and the clinical decision rules Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) did not differ significantly in white women (relative sDOR: 0.57-1.17, all p >or= 0.11). By contrast, sDOR was higher for Stiffness Index assessed by calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography than for OST (relative sDOR: 1.9, p = 0.005). Studies were few in Asian and black women. Methodological quality, assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist, was generally low.

CONCLUSIONS

In white women, the accuracy of OST and alternative clinical decision rules was similar, whereas Stiffness Index was more accurate than OST. Low study quality renders transferability to clinical settings uncertain.

Forearm single X-ray absorptiometry in the identification of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the hip and spine: a correlation study

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has stated that forearm bone mineral density (BMD) testing combined with a thorough clinical evaluation may be an option for the diagnosis of osteoporosis when central bone density (CBD) testing is not available. This study assessed the performance of two different forearm sites in identifying subjects with spinal and femoral osteoporosis, and defined the 90% sensitivity point for the DTX-100 bone densitometer in the detection of central osteoporosis. Four hundred and two postmenopausal Bulgarian women between the ages of 50 and 81 yr (mean age 60.24 +/- 10.48 yr) participated in this study. Forearm BMD (distal and ultradistal forearm) was measured with a DTX-100 device (Osteometer Meditech, USA) and central BMD (lumbar spine and proximal femur) with a Hologic QDR 4500 A device. Linear T-score correlations among sites, sensitivity and specificity of the forearm site were analyzed. T-score correlations between the forearm and the central sites ranged from 0.32 to 0.69 (p < or = 0.05 for all correlations in age group 50-59). The forearm site sensitivity increased slightly with advancing age, but specificity decreased. When the distal forearm BMD cut point (0.340 g/cm2) was set to achieve 90% sensitivity to identify total hip osteoporosis, specificity was 40%; when the distal forearm BMD cut point (0.410 g/cm2) was set to achieve 90% sensitivity to identify spinal osteoporosis, specificity was 55.4%; when ultradistal forearm BMD cut points (0.280 and 0.320 g/cm2) were set to achieve 90% sensitivity to identify total hip and spinal osteoporosis, specificity was 40.8 and 59.2%, respectively. Forearm bone density measures may be useful to selectively screen for patients with central osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis: Point-of-Care Testing

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature concerning the utility of point-of-care (POC) testing devices for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis.

DATA SOURCES

Articles were identified from a MEDLINE search (1993–June 2003). Additional references were obtained from cross-referencing the bibliographies of selected articles.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

After evaluation of clinical trials and select review articles, articles comparing peripheral dual-energy absorptiometry (pDXA) or quantitative ultrasound (QUS) with central DXA (cDXA) measurements were emphasized in this analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Sensitivity for detecting osteoporosis by QUS or pDXA varies widely (range 35–75%). Using adjusted T-score cutoffs increases sensitivity to 85–95%, at the price of reducing device specificity to 23–49%. Many states require a radiology technician to perform pDXA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

POC testing with peripheral devices should only be considered in areas with limited access to cDXA or for women who initially refuse cDXA testing. T scores of −1.0 or less with POC testing typically require further evaluation via cDXA. Many states require pDXAs to be performed by certified radiology technologists, making QUS use more feasible for pharmacists. POC testing should not be used for assessing response to osteoporosis therapy.

Ability of peripheral DXA measurement to diagnose osteoporosis as assessed by central DXA measurement

In order to evaluate the utility of peripheral measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis, we measured BMD at the spine and femoral neck with central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), at phalanx with AccuDXA (Schick) as well as proximal and distal forearm with pDXA (Norland) in 835 women ranging in age from 20 to 85 yr. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, where a positive case was defined as a T-score < or = -2.5 either on spine or femoral neck, the areas under the curve were not significantly different between sites. At a T-score of -2.5 as determined by each peripheral apparatus, sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.39 and 0.95 for phalanx and 0.75 and 0.85 for proximal forearm whereas they were 0.42 and 0.96 for distal forearm. Using optimal absolute BMD cutoff values improved the results. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.79 and 0.83 for phalanx at an absolute BMD value of 0.436 and 0.84 and 0.79 for proximal forearm at a value of 0.703, whereas they were 0.90 and 0.75 for distal forearm at a value of 0.208. Combining the two forearm measurements improves the results slightly. At cutoff values of 0.641 and 0.252, respectively for proximal and distal forearms, sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.84. Therefore, a peripheral measurement of BMD together with a good clinical evaluation of the osteoporosis risk profile of the patient, can be an interesting tool for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in areas where central DXA is not available.

Ultradistal and distal forearm bone mineral density in postmenopausal women

OBJECTIVES

A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate bone mineral density of the forearm in older women.

METHODS

Eight hundred and thirty-two women who had received a routine distal forearm bone mineral density screening measurement were included. Data were collected on age, age at menopause, duration of menopause, body height, body weight, and duration of hormone replacement therapy.

RESULTS

After menopause the incidence of osteoporosis increased markedly with age, from 5.8% in the distal site and 3.9% in the ultradistal site less than 5 years after menopause to 61.1% and 44.4%, respectively, 25 years or later after menopause. Hormone replacement therapy markedly reduced the incidence of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

After menopause, the incidence of osteoporosis in the forearm increased markedly with years. Women with higher body weight had higher forearm bone mineral density, and postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy prevented bone loss in the forearm.

Can radial bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound measurements reduce the number of women who need axial density skeletal assessment?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of forearm bone mineral density (BMD) and speed of sound (SOS) at the phalanx and radius as pre-selection tests to identify women with low BMD at the axial skeleton. BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the forearm, lumbar spine and femoral neck. SOS at the radius and phalanx was measured using a multisite quantitative ultrasound (QUS) device. Measurements were performed on 524 consecutive women referred for the assessment of BMD. Women with a T-score <-1 and T-score < or =-2.5 at either spine or femoral neck were identified, and T-score cut-off values for the forearm DXA and QUS variables were determined. Cut-off values for the forearm BMD estimated to detect normal women and those with T-score <-1 at the axial skeleton identified a total of 82% of subjects with 91% certainty. Cut-off values for the forearm BMD determined to detect women with T-score >-2.5 and those with osteoporosis allowed the identification of 62% of the study population with 90% certainty. Cut-off values for the phalangeal and radial SOS estimated to detect normal women and those with T-score <-1 at the axial skeleton identified a total of 49% and 1% of subjects, respectively. Cut-off values estimated for QUS variables to detect women with T-score >-2.5 and those with osteoporosis at the axial skeleton either failed to detect subjects with sufficient certainty (phalangeal SOS) or detected a negligible percentage of patients (radial SOS). In conclusion, forearm BMD may be used as a pre-selection test to identify women with low BMD at the axial skeleton, thus enabling reduction of the number of women who need axial BMD assessment. SOS of the phalanges and radius appears to have less value in the detection of the women with low axial BMD.

Current controversies in bone densitometry

In the face of increasing use of all types of bone densitometry in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis, the limitations of the World Health Organization criteria for the diagnosis of osteoporosis based on bone density measurements have become apparent. Controversy has arisen about whether these criteria should be used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Using densitometry to monitor changes in bone density as a measure of therapeutic efficacy has been criticized. It has been suggested that changes in bone density are not surrogates for reduction in fracture risk and that regression to the mean invalidates serial testing. There is both truth and fallacy in these controversies. The resolutions are critical to the role of densitometry in clinical practice.