Dual Hip DXA. Is it Time to Change Standard Protocol?

Updated practice guideline for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)

The introduction of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology in the 1980s revolutionized the diagnosis, management and monitoring of osteoporosis, providing a clinical tool which is now available worldwide. However, DXA measurements are influenced by many technical factors, including the quality control procedures for the instrument, positioning of the patient, and approach to analysis. Reporting of DXA results may be confounded by factors such as selection of reference ranges for T-scores and Z-scores, as well as inadequate knowledge of current standards for interpretation. These points are addressed at length in many international guidelines but are not always easily assimilated by practising clinicians and technicians. Our aim in this report is to identify key elements pertaining to the use of DXA in clinical practice, considering both technical and clinical aspects. Here, we discuss technical aspects of DXA procedures, approaches to interpretation and integration into clinical practice, and the use of non-bone mineral density measurements, such as a vertebral fracture assessment, in clinical risk assessment.

Osteoporosis should be evaluated by bone mineral density at the combination of the lumbar spine and ipsilateral femoral neck in female patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for knee arthroplasty: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Knee arthroplasty is a well-established surgery with good clinical outcomes. However, periprosthetic fractures and aseptic loosening negatively impact clinical outcomes, and osteoporosis is one of the causes of such complication. Osteoporosis is usually evaluated by bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and hip using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, the prevalence of this disease in patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for knee arthroplasty may be underestimated due to differences in the measurement sites. This study aimed to determine the appropriate measurement site for DXA that would not miss osteoporosis in female patients with knee osteoarthritis undergoing knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

We measured bone mineral density preoperatively in the consecutive 50 female patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for knee arthroplasty by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at five sites: the lumbar spine, bilateral-total hip, and femoral neck. We then compared the prevalence of osteoporosis among the four combinations of the lumbar spine and single hip site (ipsilateral or contralateral total hip or femoral neck).

RESULTS

Osteoporosis prevalence in the combination of the lumbar spine and ipsilateral or contralateral total hip was 32%, and that in the combination of the lumbar spine and contralateral femoral neck was 44%. Notably, the disease's prevalence in the combination of the lumbar spine and ipsilateral femoral neck was 50%, which was significantly higher than that in the other combinations.

CONCLUSION

Osteoporosis should be evaluated by bone mineral density in the combination of the lumbar spine and ipsilateral femoral neck in female patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for knee arthroplasty.

National Survey of the Bone Densitometry Evaluation Process Within an Integrated Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

To assess the current state of bone mineral density evaluation services via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provided to Veterans with fracture risk through the development and administration of a nationwide survey of facilities in the Veterans Health Administration.

METHODOLOGY

The Bone Densitometry Survey was developed by convening a Work Group of individuals with expertise in bone densitometry and engaging the Work Group in an iterative drafting and revision process. Once completed, the survey was beta tested, administered through REDCap, and sent via e-mail to points of contact at 178 VHA facilities.

RESULTS

Facility response rate was 31 % (56/178). Most DXA centers reported positively to markers of readiness for their bone densitometers: less than 10 years old (n=35; 63 %); in "excellent" or "good" condition (n=44; 78 %, 32 % and 46 %, respectively); and perform phantom calibration (n=43; 77 %). Forty-one DXA centers (73 %) use intake processes that have been shown to reduce errors. Thirty-seven DXA centers (66 %) reported their technologists receive specialized training in DXA, while 14 (25 %) indicated they receive accredited training. Seventeen DXA centers (30 %) reported performing routine precision assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many DXA centers reported using practices that meet minimal standards for DXA reporting and preparation; however, the lack of standardization, even within an integrated healthcare system, indicates an opportunity for quality improvement to ensure consistent high quality bone mineral density evaluation of Veterans.

Bone mineral density differences between femurs of scoliotic patients undergoing quantitative computed tomography analysis

PURPOSE

Scoliosis is a cause of loading imbalance between the lower limbs, which can result in BMD differences between the two femurs. We investigated the discrepancy in BMD values assessed by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) between femurs in patients with and without scoliosis, also assessing if this difference can be related to spine convexity.

METHODS

Abdominal CT examinations were retrospectively reviewed. An ''asynchronous'' calibration of CT images was performed to obtain BMD values from QCT. Scoliosis was evaluated on the antero-posterior CT localizer to calculate the Cobb angle. Differences between aBMD and vBMD of femurs were assessed in both scoliotic and non-scoliotic subjects.

RESULTS

Final study cohort consisted of 263 subjects, 225 of them without scoliosis (85.6%) and 38 with scoliosis (14.4%). No significant differences were found in the general population without scoliosis, except for vBMD at the neck. Comparison of femurs in scoliotic patients showed statistically significant differences at neck aBMD -0.028 g/cm2, p = 0.004), total femur aBMD (--0.032 g/cm2, p = 0.008) and total femur vBMD (--8.9 mg/cm3, p = 0.011), with lower BMD values on the convexity side. In 10 cases (26%) a change in the final T-score diagnosis was observed.

CONCLUSION

QCT analysis demonstrated a difference in both areal and volumetric BMD between the two femurs of scoliotic patients, in relation to the side of the scoliotic curve. If these data will be confirmed by larger studies, bilateral femoral DXA acquisition may be proposed for these patients.

Bilateral hip DXA Reporting: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

INTRODUCTION

This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies.

METHODS

Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined.

RESULTS

The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

Quantifying misdiagnosis rates from cross-calibration biases and precision errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the femoral neck

BACKGROUND

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an exam that measures areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and is regularly used to diagnose and monitor osteoporosis. Except for exam quality issues such as operator error, the quantitative results of an exam are not modified by a radiologist or other physician. DXA cross-calibration errors can shift diagnoses, conceivably leading to alternate intervention decisions and patient outcomes.

PURPOSE

After identifying and correcting a cross-calibration bias of 3.8% in our two DXA scanners' aBMD measurements, we investigated misdiagnosis rates for given cross-calibration errors in a single patient cohort to determine the impact on patient care and the value of cross-calibration quality control.

METHODS

The studied cohort was 8012 patients of all ages and sexes with femoral neck exams that were scanned on a single DXA unit from October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2021. There were six subcohorts delineated by age and sex, three female groups and three male groups. Data reporting focused on the highest risk subcohort of 2840 females aged 65 or older. The DXA unit had no calibration changes during that time. Only one femoral neck-left or right-was randomly chosen for analysis. Patients with multiple qualifying exams within the time interval had one exam randomly chosen. The proof-of-principle simulation shifted the aBMD values within a range of ±10%, ±8%, ±6%, ±4%, ±3.5%, ±3%, ±2.5%, ±2%, ±1.5%, ±1%, ±0.5%, and 0 (no shift); the cross-calibration shifts were informed by published results and institutional experience. Measurement precision was modeled by randomly sampling a Gaussian distribution characterized by the worst acceptable least significant change (LSC) of 6.9%, with 100 000 samplings for each patient. T-scores were recalculated from the shifted aBMD values, followed by reassigned diagnoses from the World Health Organization's T-score-based scheme.

RESULTS

The unshifted original subcohort of women aged 65 and older had 599 normal diagnoses (21.1% of the cohort), 1784 osteopenia diagnoses (62.8%), and 455 osteoporosis diagnoses (16.1%). Osteoporosis diagnosis rates were highly sensitive to aBMD shifts. At the extrema, a -10% aBMD shift led to +161% osteoporosis cases, and a +10% aBMD shift led to -64.5% osteoporosis cases. Within the more plausible ±4% aBMD error range, the osteoporosis diagnosis rate changed -10.5% per +1% aBMD shift as indicated by linear regression (R²  = 0.98). Except for the men aged 49 years and younger subcohort, the total cohort and five subcohorts had fit line slopes ranging between -9.7% and -12.1% with R² ≥ 0.98. Cross-calibration bias had greater influence for diagnosis count rates compared to measurement precision, that is, LSC.

CONCLUSIONS

These results quantify the degree of misdiagnosis that can occur in a clinically relevant cohort due to cross-calibration bias. In medical practices where patients may be scanned on more than one DXA unit, ensuring cross-calibration quality is a critical and high-value quality control task with direct impact on patient diagnosis and treatment course. The clinical impact and incidence of poor DXA quality control practices, and cross-calibration in particular, should be studied further.