ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT - AN EVALUATION OF 3 HEEL BONE SCANNERS COMPARED WITH A BENCH-TOP SYSTEM

Citation
R. Strelitzki et al., ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT - AN EVALUATION OF 3 HEEL BONE SCANNERS COMPARED WITH A BENCH-TOP SYSTEM, Osteoporosis international, 6(6), 1996, pp. 471-479
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
Orthopedics,"Endocrynology & Metabolism
Journal title
ISSN journal
0937941X
Volume
6
Issue
6
Year of publication
1996
Pages
471 - 479
Database
ISI
SICI code
0937-941X(1996)6:6<471:UM-AEO>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Abstract
Three commercial ultrasound bone scanners designed for os calcis measu rements (Lunar Achilles, C.U.B.A. ''Research'' and UBA 575) were compa red using the Leeds Ultrasonic Bone Phantoms. The porosity of the phan toms ranged from 50% to 83% with velocities between 1490 and 1621 m s( -1) and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) values in the range 46- 115 dB MHz(-1). The three devices tested were able to discriminate por osity differences of at least 3%, although the values obtained for the propagation parameters varied widely. Velocity differences of up to 3 8 m s(-1) and BUA variations of up to 33 dB MHz(-1) were found, althou gh a relationship was identified between the velocity and BUA measurem ents. In some cases, the variation can be attributed to differences in the measurement technique adopted, although there also seem to be det ailed differences in the definition of the parameters themselves. The variation between different devices from the same manufacturer (Lunar) was also studied. Measurements taken from five devices showed variati on in velocity values of up to 25 m s(-1) (SD 10.8 m s(-1)) and in BUA values of up to 11 dB MHz(-1) (SD 4.3 dB MHz(-1)). We conclude that t he variation both between manufacturers and between nominally identica l machines may be of clinical significance. Both users and manufacture rs need to consider urgently the introduction of quality standards and consensus definition of terms and techniques. The fact that all machi nes studied have been superseded commercially does not invalidate thes e conclusions, since many of the devices tested remain in clinical use and there is no evidence of fundamental change in manufacturers' proc edures.