Incorrect Size of Lumbar Spine Region of Interest on A Hologic Lumbar Spine Scan

 

The default width of the lumbar spine region of interest is 116 pixels wide on a Hologic scan. The analysis shown on the left has the width at 114 pixels. The analysis on the right shows the corrected data with the width of the region of interest at 116 pixels.  It is important to have the correct analysis of a baseline scan so it will transfer to a follow-up scan.

Case Description:

The spine was initially analyzed with the width of the lumbar spine region of interest at 114 pixels. The default for the width of the lumbar spine is 116 pixels. The correct analysis is seen at the right.

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/Presentation Detail.aspx?pid=83c01c31-237b-4f07-81a5-1eeb2a7968aa&ptag=AuthorDetail&aid=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000. ).
• Bendavid, E.J., et al., Frequency and magnitude of analysis errors of bone density results assessed by dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res, 1993. 8 (Suppl 1): p. S345..
• El Maghraoui, A. and C. Roux, DXA scanning in clinical practice. QJM, 2008. 101(8): p. 605-17..
• 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.
• 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 2020.
• Messina, C., et al., Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol, 2015. 25(5): p. 1504-11.
• 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.