nach oben

Archives of Osteoporosis

Erschienen in:

01.12.2020 | Original Article

Multidisciplinary team training reduces the error rate of DXA image

Erschienen in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Ausgabe 1/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Summary

Establishing the hospital’s own standard operating procedures (SOPs) and team training including physicians and technologists reduces the error rate of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement. In addition, when monitoring DXA images, it is necessary to check whether region of interest (ROI) and bone mapping are properly set as well as patient positioning.

Introduction

Physicians often experience poor quality DXA images, which affects osteoporosis treatment. The purpose of this study is to analyze the change in the error rate of DXA images after a multidisciplinary team training including physicians and technologists.

Methods

Experienced physicians and DXA technologists formed a training team to establish SOPs for DXA measurement. The training team instructed the other related hospital personnel for a month. We set the criteria of measurement errors (9 items for the lumbar spine image and 8 items for the proximal femur image). With these criteria, a total of 637 images (320 images before training and 317 images after training) were analyzed to check the frequency and distribution of errors before and after training.

Results

The most common error when measuring the lumbar spine image before training was inadequate bone mapping (51.9%), and when measuring the proximal femur image was the incorrect area of the ROI of the femoral neck (37.2%). The most improved error after training was inadequate bone mapping (33.3% improvement) in the lumbar spine image and inadequate internal rotation (13.6% improvement) in the proximal femur image. Errors were significantly reduced by 23.2% in the lumbar spine, 9.0% in the proximal femur, and 9.2% in both the regions.

Conclusions

Establishing SOPs and multidisciplinary team training effectively reduced the error rate of DXA images.

Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359(9321):1929–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5CrossRefPubMed

WHO (2007) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. http://www.who.int/chp/topics/rheumatic/en/index.html. http://www.who.int/chp/topics/rheumatic/en/index.html. Accessed 10 April 2020

Karahan AY, Kaya B, Kuran B, Altindag O, Yildirim P, Dogan SC, Basaran A, Salbas E, Altinbilek T, Guler T, Tolu S, Hasbek Z, Ordahan B, Kaydok E, Yucel U, Yesilyurt S, Polat AD, Cubukcu M, Nas O, Sarp U, Yasar O, Kucuksarac S, Turkoglu G, Karadag A, Bagcaci S, Erol K, Guler E, Tuna S, Yildirim A, Karpuz S (2016) Common mistakes in the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A retrospective descriptive multicenter study. Acta Med (Hradec Kralove) 59(4):117–123. https://doi.org/10.14712/18059694.2017.38CrossRef

Watts NB (2004) Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int 15(11):847–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1681-7CrossRefPubMed

Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Petak SM (2006) DXA quality matters. J Clin Densitom 9(4):388–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2006.07.002CrossRefPubMed

Lewiecki EM, Lane NE (2008) Common mistakes in the clinical use of bone mineral density testing. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 4(12):667–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Messina C, Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM, D'Alonzo NK, Di Leo G, Papini GD, Ulivieri FM, Sardanelli F (2015) Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 25(5):1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3509-yCrossRefPubMed

Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Morgan SL, Shuhart CR, Camargos BM, Carey JJ, Gordon CM, Jankowski LG, Lee JK, Leslie WD, International Society for Clinical D (2016) Best practices for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement and reporting: International Society for Clinical Densitometry Guidance. J Clin Densitom 19(2):127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2016.03.003CrossRefPubMed

Krueger D, Binkley N, Morgan S (2018) Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry quality matters. J Clin Densitom 21(2):155–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.10.002CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kim H, Kim HS, Moon ES, Yoon CS, Chung TS, Song HT, Suh JS, Lee YH, Kim S (2010) Scoliosis imaging: what radiologists should know. Radiographics 30(7):1823–1842. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.307105061CrossRefPubMed

11.

Promma S, Sritara C, Wipuchwongsakorn S, Chuamsaamarkkee K, Utamakul C, Chamroonrat W, Kositwattanarerk A, Anongpornjossakul Y, Thamnirat K, Ongphiphadhanakul B (2018) Errors in patient positioning for bone mineral density assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry: effect of technologist retraining. J Clin Densitom 21(2):252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.07.004CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kim JM, Lee BS, Bin SI (2018) Editorial commentary: meniscal allograft transplantation: still effective with poor cartilage, but much better with good cartilage-better done earlier. Arthroscopy 34(6):1877–1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.02.016CrossRefPubMed

13.

Cetin A, Ozguclu E, Ozcakar L, Akinci A (2008) Evaluation of the patient positioning during DXA measurements in daily clinical practice. Clin Rheumatol 27(6):713–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-007-0773-0CrossRefPubMed

14.

Maldonado G, Intriago M, Larroude M, Aguilar G, Moreno M, Gonzalez J, Vargas S, Vera C, Rios K, Rios C (2020) Common errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in imaging centers in Ecuador. Arch Osteoporos 15(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0673-3CrossRefPubMed

15.

Morgan SL, Prater GL (2017) Quality in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans. Bone 104:13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.01.033CrossRefPubMed

16.

Peel NF, Johnson A, Barrington NA, Smith TW, Eastell R (1993) Impact of anomalous vertebral segmentation on measurements of bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 8(6):719–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650080610CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lorente Ramos RM, Azpeitia Arman J, Arevalo Galeano N, Munoz Hernandez A, Garcia Gomez JM, Gredilla Molinero J (2012) Dual energy X-ray absorptimetry: fundamentals, methodology, and clinical applications. Radiologia 54(5):410–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2011.09.023CrossRefPubMed

18.

Garg MK, Kharb S (2013) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 17(2):203–210. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8210.109659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Leslie WD, Manitoba Bone Density P (2006) The impact of bone area on short-term bone density precision. J Clin Densitom 9(2):150–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2005.12.001CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kline GA, Hanley DA (2006) Differences of vertebral area in serial bone density measurements: a common source of potential error in interpretation of BMD change. J Clin Densitom 9(4):419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2006.08.006CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Multidisciplinary team training reduces the error rate of DXA image
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2020
Erschienen in: Archives of Osteoporosis / Ausgabe 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Elektronische ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00791-8

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Multidisciplinary team training reduces the error rate of DXA image

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Comparing self-assessment, functional, and anthropometric techniques in predicting osteoporosis

Initiation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in high-risk female patients starting glucocorticoid treatment: a population study in Norway

Recent trends in the incidence of hip fracture in Tottori Prefecture, Japan: changes over 32 years

Experiences of using an activating spinal orthosis in women with osteoporosis and back pain in primary care

A prediction tool for vitamin D deficiency in New Zealand adults

Outcome of osteoporosis evaluation, treatment, and follow-up in patients referred to a specialized outpatient clinic compared to patients in care of general practitioners

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie