A REMS Scan-Based Report on Relation Between Body Mass Index and Osteoporosis in Urban Population of Medan at Royal Prima Hospital

Khu, Adrian; Sumardi, M.Si.

doi:10.15395/mkb.v52n1.1827

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, considering that REMS can automatically identify the bone interface and then analyze the ultrasonic signal reflected by the bone region of interest in a highly selective way, it may still have a superior ability concerning DXA in dealing with physical interferences induced by fat tissues. For instance, during a REMS scan at the lumbar spine, the attenuation of the signal caused by the encumbrance of abdominal fat can be counteracted by increasing the focus and depth values and pressing the transducer on the abdomen, thus maximizing penetration of the ultrasonic beam on the bone interface [ 34 ]. On the other hand, DXA is a technique that measures the areal bone density from a bi-dimensional image obtained as a planar projection of the scanned tissues, without considering the effects of different volumetric tissues above the ROI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-Term Precision and Repeatability of Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) on Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur: An In Vivo Study

Messina,

Gitto,

Colombo

et al. 2023

J. Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the short-term intra-operator precision and inter-operator repeatability of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry (REMS) at the lumbar spine (LS) and proximal femur (FEM). All patients underwent an ultrasound scan of the LS and FEM. Both precision and repeatability, expressed as root-mean-square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV) and least significant change (LSC) were obtained using data from two consecutive REMS acquisitions by the same operator or two different operators, respectively. The precision was also assessed in the cohort stratified according to BMI classification. The mean (±SD) age of our subjects was 48.9 ± 6.8 for LS and 48.3 ± 6.1 for FEM. Precision was assessed on 42 subjects at LS and 37 subjects on FEM. Mean (±SD) BMI was 24.71 ± 4.2 for LS and 25.0 ± 4.84 for FEM. Respectively, the intra-operator precision error (RMS-CV) and LSC resulted in 0.47% and 1.29% at the spine and 0.32% and 0.89% at the proximal femur evaluation. The inter-operator variability investigated at the LS yielded an RMS-CV error of 0.55% and LSC of 1.52%, whereas for the FEM, the RMS-CV was 0.51% and the LSC was 1.40%. Similar values were found when subjects were divided into BMI subgroups. REMS technique provides a precise estimation of the US-BMD independent of subjects’ BMI differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%