Skip to main content
Log in

Prevalence of osteoporosis using bone mineral measurements at the calcaneus by dual X-ray and laser (DXL)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using manufacturers reference data the prevalence of osteoporosis using a T-score threshold of −2.5 for heel measurements by DXL technology was compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at the femoral neck, spine and forearm. The prevalence of osteoporosis for women aged 50 years or older was 28% for DXL measurements of the heel bone and 30, 22 and 32% for DXA measurements of the lumbar spine, femoral neck and forearm respectively. Bone mineral density (BMD) was also measured by DXL in the heel bone and by DXA in spine and femoral neck in 251 women (mean age 62±14.5 years) when attending an osteoporosis clinic. The sensitivity and specificity for osteoporosis and osteopenia for the DXL measurements were calculated assuming a low T-score at the spine or femoral neck as the criterion for a correct diagnosis. The sensitivity was found to be 80% for osteoporosis and 82% for osteopenia and the specificity was 82% for osteoporosis and 89% for osteopenia. We conclude that DXL measurement at the heel bone, using a T-score threshold of −2.5 for classification of osteoporosis, is in concordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of osteoporosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bolotin HH, Sievänen H (2001) Inaccuracies inherent in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in vivo bone mineral density can seriously mislead diagnostic/prognostic interpretations of patient-specific bone fragility. J Bone Miner Res 16:799–805

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonson R (1993) Mass attenuation coefficients, quantities and units for use in bone mineral determinations. Osteoporos Int 3:103–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lochmueller EM, Miller P, Burklein D, Wehr U, Rambeck W, Eckstein F (2000) In situ femoral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry related to ash weight, bone size and density, and its relationship with mechanical failure loads of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 11:361–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kupier JW, van Kuijk C, Grashuis JL, Ederveen AGH, Schutte HE (1996) Accuracy and the influence of marrow fat on quantitative CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of the femoral neck in vitro. Osteoporos Int 6:25–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meunier P., Aaron J., Edouard C., Vignon G (1971) Osteoporosis and the replacement of cell populations of the marrow by adipose tissue. Clin Orthop 80:147–154

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Swanpalmer J, Kullenberg RA (2000) new measuring device for quantifying the amount of mineral in the heel bone. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904:115–117

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. The WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report 843, World Health Organisation, Geneva

  8. Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E, Faulkner KG et al. (2001) Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. JAMA 286:2815–2822

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Black DM, Cummings SR, Genant HK et al. (1992) Axial and appendicular bone density predict fractures in older women. J Bone Miner Res 7:633–638

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al. (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (1997) Bone density measurement—a systematic review. J Int Med 241, Supplement 739:1–60

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blake GM, Fogelman I (2001) Peripheral or central densitometry: does it matter which technique we use? J Clin Densitom 4:83–96

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC et al. (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 341:72–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrum LK, Vogel JM (1987) Selection of the optimal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop 216:262–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vogel JM, Wasnich RD, Ross PD (1988) The clinical relevance of calcaneus bone mineral measurements: a review. Bone Miner 5:35–58

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith RW, Walker RR (1964) Femoral expansion in aging women: implications for osteoporosis and fractures. Science 145:156–157

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P (1999) Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom 3:343–350

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kullenberg, R., Falch, J.A. Prevalence of osteoporosis using bone mineral measurements at the calcaneus by dual X-ray and laser (DXL). Osteoporos Int 14, 823–827 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1442-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1442-z

Keywords

Navigation