1. Assessing Agreement of Lateral Leg Muscle and Bone Composition Using Dual X-ray Absorptiometry
- Author
-
Tyler A. Bosch, Christiana J. Raymond-Pope, and Donald R. Dengel
- Subjects
Male ,0301 basic medicine ,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism ,030209 endocrinology & metabolism ,Bone and Bones ,Patient Positioning ,Fat mass ,Leg muscle ,Young Adult ,03 medical and health sciences ,Absorptiometry, Photon ,0302 clinical medicine ,Bone Density ,Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ,Humans ,Lateral view ,Medicine ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,Lateral epicondyle ,Dual x-ray absorptiometry ,Muscle, Skeletal ,Bone mineral ,Leg ,business.industry ,Adipose Tissue ,Body Composition ,Lean body mass ,Bone mineral content ,Female ,030101 anatomy & morphology ,Nuclear medicine ,business - Abstract
Background: Recently, a lateral-view dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning method for measuring leg total, lean, and fat masses demonstrated accuracy vs the standard whole-body frontal DXA scanning view on the GE Lunar iDXA. The current study examined the lateral scanning method's agreement using a Hologic Horizon A DXA scanner. Methodology: Thirty healthy college-age participants (16 female; Xage = 21.5 ± 1.7 yr) received 3 DXA scans (1 whole-body, 2 lateral leg scans) to quantify leg composition in the frontal and lateral plane. To mark regions of interest for postscan analysis, metallic markers were placed at 60% of the length above and below each leg's lateral epicondyle. Using lateral subject positioning, leg composition was measured with participants lying on their right and left sides. Paired t tests examined the lateral DXA scanning method's agreement when quantifying total, fat, and lean masses, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density compared to measurements of equal area in the whole-body frontal scanning view. Results: Comparisons of frontal and lateral view DXA scan measurements for right leg total mass (7.12 ± 0.91kg vs 6.39 ± 0.85kg), fat mass (1.70 ± 0.44kg vs 1.36 ± 0.33kg), lean mass (5.14 ± 1.05kg vs 4.77 ± 0.92kg), bone mineral content (0.28 ± 0.06kg vs 0.23 ± 0.05kg), and bone mineral density (1.39 ± 0.14g/cm2vs 1.36 ± 0.15g/cm2), respectively, were significantly different (p
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF