Optimal monitoring time interval between DXA measures in children.

The monitoring time interval (MTI) is the expected time in years necessary to identify a change between two measures that exceeds the measurement error. Our purpose was to determine MTI values for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans in normal healthy children, according to age, sex, and skeletal site. 2014 children were enrolled in the Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Study and had DXA scans of the lumbar spine, total hip, nondominant forearm, and whole body. Measurements were obtained annually for seven visits from 2002 to 2010. Annualized rates of change were calculated by age and sex for all bone regions. A subgroup of 155 children ages 6 to 16 years (85 boys) had duplicate scans for calculation of scan precision. The bone mineral density (BMD) regions of interest included the spine, total body less head (TBLH), total hip, femoral neck, and one-third radius. Bone mineral content (BMC) was also evaluated for the spine and TBLH. The percent coefficient of variation (%CV) and MTI were calculated for each measure as a function of age and sex. The MTI values were substantially less than 1 year for the TBLH and spine BMD and BMC for boys ≤ 17 years and girls ≤ 15 years. The hip and one-third radius MTIs were generally 1 year in the same group. MTI values as low as 3 months were found during the peak growth years. However, the MTI values in late adolescence for all regions were substantially longer and became nonsensical as each region neared the age for peak bone density. All four DXA measurement sites had reasonable (< 1 year) MTI values for boys ≤ 17 years and girls ≤ 15 years. MTI was neither useful nor stable in late adolescence and young adulthood. Alternative criteria to determine scan intervals must be used in this age range.

Patient acceptability of manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, postprocedure quality of life, and acceptability of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) performed as an outpatient with electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) performed in a hospital in women experiencing a first-trimester miscarriage. METHODS: From a randomized multicenter trial comparing misoprostol with vacuum aspiration for first-trimester loss, data were extracted comparing the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of MVA in an office setting with local anesthesia with EVA in an operating room environment with spinal or general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven women underwent EVA or MVA. Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups. Physical and emotional role functioning scores were better in patients undergoing MVA (p=0.01), and fewer patients undergoing MVA missed work or required help at home (p<0.01). However, pain severity scores were better in the EVA arm of the study (p=0.03). There was a trend toward fewer MVA patients recommending or using this procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early pregnancy loss, treatment with MVA as an outpatient with local anesthesia is an effective and safe alternative to EVA performed in a hospital with conscious sedation or spinal or general anesthesia. Treatment in the outpatient setting allows for a better physical and emotional quality of life postprocedure.