Publication: Errors in Patient Positioning for Bone Mineral Density Assessment by Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry: Effect of Technologist Retraining
Issued Date
2018-04-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15590747
10946950
10946950
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85027275422
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Clinical Densitometry. Vol.21, No.2 (2018), 252-259
Suggested Citation
Sasivimol Promma, Chanika Sritara, Saowanee Wipuchwongsakorn, Krisanat Chuamsaamarkkee, Chirawat Utamakul, Wichana Chamroonrat, Arpakorn Kositwattanarerk, Yoch Anongpornjossakul, Kanungnij Thamnirat, Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul Errors in Patient Positioning for Bone Mineral Density Assessment by Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry: Effect of Technologist Retraining. Journal of Clinical Densitometry. Vol.21, No.2 (2018), 252-259. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2017.07.004 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46783
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Errors in Patient Positioning for Bone Mineral Density Assessment by Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry: Effect of Technologist Retraining
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2017 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Improper positioning is one of the factors that can lead to incorrect bone mineral density (BMD) results. This study aimed to assess the frequencies of erroneous positioning during three periods: before retraining of the technologists (BR), after retraining (AR), and at the current timepoint 8 years after retraining (C). The BMD images of the first 150 consecutive patients who underwent DXA of the lumbar spine and hip during each of the three periods were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had severe scoliosis, rendering proper positioning impossible. Each BMD image was assessed by an International Society of Clinical Densitometry certified clinical densitometrist who was blinded to the date of the initial examination. For the lumbar spine in the BR group, the criteria frequently not met were inclusion of both iliac crests (33.8%), straightness (30.3%), and midline positioning (20.4%); the respective frequencies were significantly reduced to 0.8%−5.6%, 2.1%−3.0%, and 0%−2.8% in the AR and C groups (p < 0.05). For the hip in the BR group, the criteria frequently not met were straightness (52.8%) and internal rotation (21.8%); the respective frequencies were significantly reduced to 0%−4.2% and 8.3%−8.4% in the AR and C groups (p < 0.05). Overall improper positioning in the BR group was 49.3% and 57.3% at the lumbar spine and the hip, respectively; the respective frequencies were reduced to 9.3% and 12.7% in the AR group, and to 2.7% and 7.3% in the C group. The least significant change values for the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip also became smaller after retraining. Retraining the technologists improved patient positioning, as evidenced by the decreased frequencies of erroneous positioning and the improved least significant change values after the retraining.