Skip to main content
Log in

Accuracy and the influence of marrow fat on quantitative CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of the femoral neck in vitro

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

Abstract

Bone mineral measurements with quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were compared with chemical analysis (ChA) to determine (1) the accuracy and (2) the influence of bone marrow fat. Total bone mass of 19 human femoral necks in vitro was determined with QCT and DXA before and after defatting. ChA consisted of defatting and decalcification of the femoral neck samples for determination of bone mineral mass (BmM) and amount of fat. The mean BmM was 4.49 g. Mean fat percentage was 37.2% (23.3%–48.5%). QCT, DXA and ChA before and after defatting were all highly correlated (r>0.96,p<0.0001). Before defatting the QCT values were on average 0.35 g less than BmM and the DXA values were on average 0.65 g less than BmM. After defatting, all bone mass values increased; QCT values were on average 0.30 g more than BmM and DXA values were 0.29 g less than BmM. It is concluded that bone mineral measurements of the femoral neck with QCT and DXA are highly correlated with the chemically determined bone mineral mass and that both techniques are influenced by the femoral fat content.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cann CE. Quantitative CT for determination of bone mineral density: a review. Radiology 1988;166:509–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Revak CS. Mineral content of cortical bone measured by computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980;4:342–50.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Genant HK, Boyd DG. Quantitative bone mineral analysis using dual energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1977;12:545–51.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Peppier WW, Mazess RB. Total body bone material and lean body mass by dual-photon absorptiometry. I. Theory and measurement procedure. Calcif Tissue Int 1981;33:353–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hangartner TN, Johnston CC. Influence of fat on bone measurements with dual-energy absorptiometry. Bone Miner 1990;9:71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pye DW. Estimation of the magnitude of the error in bone mineral measurement due to fat: the effect of machine calibration. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1991;12:87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Goodsitt MM. Evaluation of a new set of calibration standards for the measurement of fat content via DPA and DXA. Med Phys 1991;19:35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tothill P, Avenell A. Errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine owing to fat distribution and soft tissue thickness during weight change. Br J Radiol 1994;67:71–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dunnill MS, Anderson JA, Whithead R. Quantitative histological studies on age changes in bone. J Pathol Bacteriol 1967;94:275–91.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ricci C, Cova M, Kang YS, Yang A, Rahmouni A, Scott WW, Zerhouni EA. Normal age-related pattern of cellular and fatty bone marrow distribution in the axial skeleton: MR imaging study. Radiology 1990;177:83–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenthal DI, Hayes CW, Rosen B, Mayo-Smith W, Goodsitt MM. Fatty replacement of spinal bone marrow due to radiation: demonstration by dual energy quantitative CT and MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:463–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bhasin S, Sartoris DJ, Fellingham L, Zlatkin MB, Andre M, Resnick D. Three-dimensional quantitative CT of the proximal femur: relationship to vertebral trabecular bone density in postmenopausal women. Radiology 1988;167:145–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Esses SI, Lotz JC, Hayes WC. Biochemical properties of the proximal femur determined in vitro by single-energy quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:715–22.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lotz J, Gerhart TN, Hayes WC. Mechanical properties of trabecular bone from the proximal femur: a quantitative CT study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:107–14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Braten M, Nordby A, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Bone loss after locked intramedullary nailing: computed tomography of the femur and tibia in 10 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1992;63:310–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Alho A, Hoiseth A. Bone mass distribution in the lower leg: a quantitative computed tomographic study of 36 individuals. Acta Orthop Scand 1991;62:468–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Whitehouse RW, Economou G, Adams JE. Influence of temperature on QCT: implications of mineral densitometry. J Comp Assist Tomogr 1994;17:945–51.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Steenbeek JCM, Kuijk C van, Grashuis JL. Influence of calibration materials in single- and dual-energy quantitative CT. Radiology 1992;183:849–55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Faulkner KG, Glüer C-C, Grampp S, Genant HK. Cross-calibration of liquid and solid QCT calibration standards: corrections to the UCSF normative data. Osteoporosis Int 1993;3:36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mazess RB, Tempe JA, Bisek JP, Hanson JA, Hans D. Calibration of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone density. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6:799–806.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ho CP, Kim RW, Schaffler MB, Sartoris DJ. Accuracy of dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: cadaver study. Radiology 1990;176:171–3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Blake GM, McKeeney DB, Chhaya SC, Ryan PJ, Fogelman I. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: the effects of beam hardening on bone density measurements. Med Phys 1992;9:459–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuiper, J.W., van Kuijk, C., Grashuis, J.L. et al. Accuracy and the influence of marrow fat on quantitative CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of the femoral neck in vitro. Osteoporosis Int 6, 25–30 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01626534

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01626534

Keywords

Navigation