Incorrect Wrist Scan Analysis

In this GE Healthcare wrist scan, the region of interest scanned is incorrect.

Case Description:

In this GE Healthcare wrist scan, the hand is being scanned instead of the forearm.

Credit:

Sarah L Morgan, MD, RD, CCD, The University of Alabama at Birmingham

References:
  • Watts, N.B., Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int, 2004. 15(11): p. 847-54.
  • Bojinca, V., D. Opris, and M. Bonjinca, Artifacts and pitfalls in DXA scan images and interpretation. J Clin Densitom, 2012. 15(4): p. 486-487.
  • Kiraç, F.S., D. Yüksel, and O.T. Yaylali, Pitfalls in the measurement of bone mineral density by the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric method. Clin Nucl Med, 2001. 26(10): p. 874-5.
  • Hansen, K., et al., DXA Errors are Common and Likely Adversely Affect Clinical Care: DXA Quality Improvement is Needed. J Bone Miner Res 2016. 31((Suppl 1) Available at http://www.asbmr.org/ItineraryBuilder/Presentationaspx?pid=83c01c31-237b-4f07-81a5-1eeb2a7968aa&ptag=AuthorDetail&aid=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000. ).
  • Bendavid, E.J., et al., Frequency and magnitude of analysis erros of bone density results assessed by dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res, 1993. 8 (Suppl 1): p. S345.
  • Binkley, N., et al., Error prevalence in DXA performance and reporting: Improving DXA quality is essential. . J Clin Densitom, 2016. ? (? ): p.?  .
  • El Maghraoui, A. and C. Roux, DXA scanning in clinical practice. QJM, 2008. 101(8): p. 605-17.
  • Fenton, J.J., et al., Osteoporosis Overtreatment in a Regional Health Care System. JAMA Intern Med, 2016. 176(3): p. 391-3.
  • Garg, M.K. and S. Kharb, Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: Pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab, 2013. 17(2): p. 203-10.
  • Kaleta, M. and S. Wronski, The most common errors in the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil, 2001. 3(3): p. 338-44.
  • Kim, T.Y. and A.L. Schafer, Variability in DXA Reporting and Other Challenges in Osteoporosis Evaluation. JAMA Intern Med, 2016. 176(3): p. 393-5.
  • Krueger, D., et al., DXA Errors Are Common and Reduced by Use of a Reporting Template. J Clin Densitom, 2019. 22(1): p. 115-124.
  • Lewiecki, E.M., N. Binkley, and S.M. Petak, DXA quality matters. J Clin Densitom, 2006. 9(4): p. 388-92.
  • Lewiecki, E.M. and N.E. Lane, Common mistakes in the clinical use of bone mineral density testing. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol, 2008. 4(12): p. 667-74.
  • Maldonado, G., et al., Common errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in imaging centers in Ecuador. Arch Osteoporos, 2020. 15(1): p. 6.
  • Martineau, P., M. S.L., and W.D. Leslie, Bone mineral densitometry rerporting: Pearls and pitfalls. . Can Assoc Radiol J
  • Messina, C., et al., Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol, 2015. 25(5): p. 1504-11.
  • Lewiecki, E.M., et al., Best Practices for Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Measurement and Reporting: International Society for Clinical Densitometry Guidance. J Clin Densitom, 2016. 19(2): p. 127-40.
  • El-Hajj Fuleihan, G., et al., A national random survey of bone mineral density reporting in the United States. J Clin Densitom, 2002. 5(1): p. 3-9.
  • Johnston, R., et al., Quality assessment of bone density testing by DXA – Evaluation of technical and reporting deficiencies identified at a tertiary osteoporosis clinic. . J Clin Densitom, 2016. 19: p. 538-9.
  • England, J.R. and P.M. Colletti, Automated Reporting of DXA Studies Using a Custom-Built Computer Program. Clin Nucl Med, 2018. 43(6): p. 474-475.
  • Wachsmann, J., et al., Electronic Medical Record Integration for Streamlined DXA Reporting. J Digit Imaging, 2018. 31(2): p. 159-166.
  • Jones A, Goh M, Milat F, Ebeling PR, Vincent A.  Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry reports fail to adhere to international guidelines.   J Clin Densitom 24(3); 453-459, 2021.