"Effect of very dense artifacts on Hologic and general electric bone densitometry results"
- 21 May 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Archives of Osteoporosis
- Vol. 15 (1), 1-8
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00742-3
Abstract
Very dense artifacts confound bone density measurement. Hologic and GE densitometers exclude artifact density and GE also excludes associated area. Consequently, BMD is decreased with Hologic software. Despite different manufacturers' approaches, when dense artifacts overlay the spine, the affected vertebral body should be excluded from the reported BMD. Purpose Very dense objects, such as lead bullets are described as "black hole" artifacts on Hologic densitometers. Whether similar results occur on GE scanners is not reported. We hypothesized that dense artifacts confound both brands of densitometers. Methods Three lead bullets of varying size were placed overlying or adjacent to L3 on anthropomorphic and encapsulated aluminum spine phantoms. Three scans were acquired with and without projectiles on a Hologic Discovery W, GE iDXA, and Prodigy densitometer. Results Lead bullets are measured as having high bone mineral content (BMC); they appear black in dual-energy mode on Hologic scanners and are colored blue on GE scanners. On Hologic scanners, BMC of a dense artifact over bone is excluded, but the bone area is not altered. Consequently, bone mineral density (BMD) of the affected vertebra, and of L1-4, is decreased. For example, a .45 caliber bullet over L3 decreased BMD (p < 0.05) by 48.3% and L1-4 by 9.1%. GE scanners excluded associated BMC and area covered by the artifact, thereby minimizing impact on BMD. Dense artifacts over soft tissue on a phantom do not substantially affect BMD on either manufacturer's densitometer when scanned. Conclusion Densitometer manufacturers handle very dense artifacts differently. GE software removes artifact BMC and area with resultant minimal impact on BMD, Hologic removes only BMC, not area, thereby decreasing BMD. Regardless of this difference, when dense artifacts overlay the spine, it is best to exclude the affected vertebral body. Finally, the BMD stability observed with artifacts over soft tissue may not be replicated in humans.This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Artifacts and Incidental Findings Encountered on Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry: Atlas and AnalysisSeminars in Nuclear Medicine, 2015
- The Effect of 99m Tc on Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Measurement of Body Composition and Bone Mineral DensityJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2013
- “Black Hole Artifacts”—A New Potential Pitfall for DXA Accuracy?Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2008
- The Effect of Common Artifacts Lateral to the Spine on Bone Mineral Density in the Lumbar SpineJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2008
- More on the black hole: tantalum, stainless steel, titanium, and leadJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2007
- Antecedent 99mTc-MDP and 99mTc-Sestamibi Administration Corrupts Bone Mineral Density Measured by DXAJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2006
- Effect of Calcium Tablets on Interpretation of Lumbar Spine DXA ScansJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2006
- Effect of 99mTc-MDP Adminstration on Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Bone Mineral Density MeasurementsJournal of Clinical Densitometry, 2005
- Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systemsOsteoporosis International, 1996
- Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by Dual X-Ray absorptiometry: Comparison of lunar and hologic instrumentsJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1992