KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2018 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

The effect of patient position to dexa measurement

Mustafa OZER
Tacettin AYANOĞLU
Muhammet Baybars ATAOGLU
M. Yasin HATİPOGLU
Ahmet YILDIRIM
Mehmet CETİNKAYA
Sayfa
176–179
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The antiosteoporotic treatment would have beeen prescribed to 82% of the patients if the anteroposteriorly performed lumbar region Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements were taken into account, while when laterally performed measurements were taken into account the percentage was 97.5%.Conclusion: If lateral lumbar area Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements are used in diagnosing osteoporosismore patients would receive the required treatment and the risk of the osteoporotic low energy fractures could be lowered.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The aim was to compare and contrast the lumbal area DEXA measurements made in lateral and front-back positions in theclinically diagnosed female patients with osteoporosis.Material and methods: From the female patients that were referred to our clinic due to low energy fractures that occurred in areasother than the vertabrae, whom were thought to have osteoporotic fractures, were postmenaposal with no known history of diseases, and medication that can lead to osteoporosis and fracture, with no known previous diagnosis of osteoporosis, 39 patients have been included in the study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Anteroposterior and lateral standart lumbar DEXA measurements were performed on all patientsResults: The results of our study revealed that the the laterally performed lumbar Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA)measurements have diagnostic advantage in osteoporosis over anteroposteriorly performed measurements .
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The antiosteoporotic treatment would have beeen prescribed to 82% of the patients if the anteroposteriorly performed lumbar region Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements were taken into account, while when laterally performed measurements were taken into account the percentage was 97.5%.Conclusion: If lateral lumbar area Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements are used in diagnosing osteoporosismore patients would receive the required treatment and the risk of the osteoporotic low energy fractures could be lowered.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The aim was to compare and contrast the lumbal area DEXA measurements made in lateral and front-back positions in theclinically diagnosed female patients with osteoporosis.Material and methods: From the female patients that were referred to our clinic due to low energy fractures that occurred in areasother than the vertabrae, whom were thought to have osteoporotic fractures, were postmenaposal with no known history of diseases, and medication that can lead to osteoporosis and fracture, with no known previous diagnosis of osteoporosis, 39 patients have been included in the study. Anteroposterior and lateral standart lumbar DEXA measurements were performed on all patientsResults: The results of our study revealed that the the laterally performed lumbar Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA)measurements have diagnostic advantage in osteoporosis over anteroposteriorly performed measurements . The antiosteoporotic treatment would have beeen prescribed to 82% of the patients if the anteroposteriorly performed lumbar region Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements were taken into account, while when laterally performed measurements were taken into account the percentage was 97.5%.Conclusion: If lateral lumbar area Dual Energy X-ray Absorbsiometer (DEXA) measurements are used in diagnosing osteoporosismore patients would receive the required treatment and the risk of the osteoporotic low energy fractures could be lowered.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

OZER, M., AYANOĞLU, T., ATAOGLU, M. B., HATİPOGLU, M. Y., YILDIRIM, A., CETİNKAYA, M. (2022). The effect of patient position to dexa measurement. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 176–179. https://ajindex.com/articles/447318

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Ulu MA, Evik R, Dilek B. Comparison of PA spine, lateral spine, and femoral BMD measurements to determine bone loss in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 2013;33(7):1705-11.
  2. Donnelly S, Doyle DV, Denton A, Rolfe I, McCloskey EV, Spector TD. Bone mineral density and vertebral compressionfracture rates in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 1994;53(2):117-21.
  3. Bessant R, Keat A. How should clinicians manage osteoporosis in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2002;29(7):1511-9
  4. Bjarnason K, Nilas L, Hassager C, Christiansen C. Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry of the spine decubitus lateral versus anteroposterior projection in osteoporotic women: comparison to single energy X-Ray absorptiometry of the forearm. Bone 1995;16(2):255-60.
  5. Guglielmi G, Floriani I, Torri V, Li J, van Kuijk C, Genant HK, et al. Effect of spinal degenerative changes on volumetric bone mineral density of the central skeleton as measured by quantitative computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2005;46(3):269-75.
  6. Chen H, Kubo KY. Bone three-dimensional microstructural features of the common osteoporotic fracture sites. World J Orthop 2014;5(4):486-95.
  7. Masud T, Langley S, Wiltshire P, Doyle DV, Spector TD. Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis. BMJ 1993;307(6897):172-3. O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, Cooper C, Kanis JA, Silman AJ. The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11(7):1010-8.
  8. Guglielmi G, Floriani I, Torri V, Li J, van Kuijk C, Genant HK, et al. Effect of spinal degenerative changes on volumetric bone mineral density of the central skeleton as measured by quantitative computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2005;46(3):269-75.
  9. Holroyd C, Cooper C, Dennison E. Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;22(5):671-85.
  10. Whitmarsh T, Humbert L, Del Rio Barquero LM, Gregorio S, Frangi AF. 3D reconstruction of the lumbar vertebrae from anteroposterior and lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Med Image Anal 2013;17(4):475-87.
  11. Tosteson AN, Melton LJ 3rd, Dawson-Hughes B, Baim S, Favus MJ, Khosla S, et al. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 2008;19:437-47.
  12. Siris ES, Boonen S, Mitchell PJ, Bilezikian J, Silverman S. What’s in a name? What constitutes the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 2012;23(8):2093-7.
  13. Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, Bolognese