Case ReportIncreased Hip Bone Mineral Density in a Woman with Gluteal Silicon Implant
References (3)
- et al.
A comparison of a peripheral DXA system with conventional densitometry of the spine and femur
J Clin Densitom
(1998)
Cited by (14)
Accounting for Surgical Confounding Factors Affecting Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in a Large Clinical Trial
2022, Journal of Clinical DensitometryCitation Excerpt :Lean and fat tissue mass were not significantly affected by the silicone breast prostheses (17). There have also been a few case reports showing that gluteal silicone implants increased hip BMD (24–26). One case report reported a 19% increase in total hip BMD in a patient with a silicone gluteal implant overlying the hip (25).
Quality in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans
2017, BoneCitation Excerpt :See Section 3.3.1 for additional discussion related to patient preparation and external artifacts). Examples of internal artifacts [33] which may affect BMD accuracy and precision include degenerative changes, benign and malignant bone lesions, gluteal silicone implants [34–37], navel rings [38,39] calcinosis and calcified lesions [40], aortic calcification [41,42], calcified intervertebral disks [42], catheters, wires, ports, pacemakers, and feeding tubes, orthopedic hardware [43], laminectomy [32,44,45], bullets and buckshot. Jacobson et al. and Martineau et al. have published atlases which provide images artifacts and DXA pathology [33,46].
Effect of Silicone Gluteal Implant on Bone Mineral Density Evaluation by DXA Scan
2012, Journal of Clinical DensitometryCitation Excerpt :Buttock implants have the potential to significantly affect BMD measurements of the hip. A review of the literature shows two case reports of increased BMD score in individuals who have undergone gluteal augmentation (1,2). Our results are the opposite, and we presume that the difference is because of the location of the buttock implant; in our case, the implant apparently causes an overestimation of soft tissue density resulting in oversubtraction of soft tissue.
Canadian association of radiologists technical standards for bone mineral densitometry reporting
2011, Canadian Association of Radiologists JournalCitation Excerpt :The reference database and version should be specified in the report [19]. Any structural abnormalities, anatomical variants, artifacts, suboptimal positioning, or other issues that impact scan reliability and interpretation need to be considered when interpreting BMD results [1,18,19,27,58,61,65,66,70,76–88]. A judgement needs to be made as to whether they render results invalid or impact on the interpretation.
Calcium Supplement Ingestion May Alter Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density Measurement
2006, Journal of Clinical DensitometryCitation Excerpt :Optimal bone density measurement using DXA demands minimization of artifacts (1). Many of these are internal and can not be removed, such as surgical hardware, osteoarthritis, calcified aortas, or implants (2–8). However many are external, such as metal objects (e.g., zippers) or buttons made of shells (9,10), and are routinely removed.
Discrepancy in results between spine and hip scans of a woman with end stage renal disease
2002, Journal of Clinical Densitometry