Echolight REMS Discussion Group

10/21/2026

We love helping everyone and want to expand our reach. Please help us out and invite more people to our little group. When you do, drop a thumbs-up so we can thank you.

10/20/2026

OsteoStrong in Tyson's Corner, VA has opened additional appointments on November 14th with Dr. Andy Bush as the Thursday and Friday appointments filled up. Book your appointment now at http://www.osteostrongtysons.com/REMS-scan

10/19/2026

Dr. Bush will be at OsteoStrong Tysons November 12-13 from 9 am-5 pm for a REMS clinic. Book your scan at https://www.osteostrongtysons.com/rems-scan

09/25/2026

We're pleased to announce Dr. Andy Bush has launched his updated website, Bone Evaluation by CCOA. He will be adding podcasts in the coming weeks, as well as more videos. Some of you have been asking for a list of upcoming clinics, outside of Pittsboro, and that can be found at the Clinics and Events link.

Enhance your bone health with personalized orthopaedic services. Contact CCOA for advanced REMS technology & comprehensive care.

09/01/2026

Live in Virginia and couldn't make it to Fairfax? Dr. Bush will be in Richmond October 23 & 24 to do REMS scans as well. Schedule your scan now https://Calendly.com/Susan-0806/REMS-Echolight-richmond-VA

08/25/2026

In partnership with Jana Davis MS, RDN, Dr. Bush will be in Charleston, SC on Thursday, October 15th and Friday, October 16th. Call 843.801.4686 to sign up for an appointment today.

08/21/2026

For those of you near Fairfax, VA, Dr. Bush will be in the area October 2 and 3 doing REMS scans. Want more info? Here's the link https://calendly.com/Susan-0806/REMS-Echolight-Fairfax-VA?month=2026-10

08/10/2026

Making a few upgrades to the group today. Thank you all. We have also upgraded our booking process for those wanting a REMS scan in Pittsboro, NC. Just south of Chapel Hill. Great town to visit and get your REMS scan with Dr. Andy Bush.

Secure your REMS Scan or Bone Health Consult at an event in your area or in Sanford, NC. Reserve your spot now! Learn more.

08/07/2026

(Post 3 of 3)

Bibliography
1. Harvey N C, Al‑Daghri N, Beaudart C, Brandi M-L, Burlet N, Campusano C, et al. Barriers and solutions for global access to osteoporosis management: a Position Paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation, Osteoporosis International (2025) 36:1495–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-025-07628-5

2. Curry J. Measurement of the Mechanical Properties of Bone: A Recent History. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 March 14:467(8):1948-1954. doi:10.1007/11999-009-0784-z

3. Seeman E. Bone’s material and structural strength, Current Opinion in Orthopedics, Sept 2007;18(5):494-498. doi:10.1097/BCO.0b013e3282a9c162

4. Hart NH, Nimphius S, Rantalainen T, Ireland A, Siafarikas A, Newton RU. Mechanical basis of bone strength: influence of bone material, bone structure and muscle action. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2017 Sep 1;17(3):114-139. PMID: 28860414; PMCID: PMC5601257.

5. Boskey A. Using bone quality to assess fracture risk, AAOS Now, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery, July 1, 2011.

6. Paschalis E, Mendelsohn R, et al. Infrared Assessment of bone quality – a review, Clin Orthop Relat Res (2011) 469: 2170-2178.

7. Elizabeth A Zimmermann, Bjo¨rn Busse, Robert O Ritchie, the fracture mechanics of human bone: influence of disease and treatment International, Bone & Mineral Society Bonekey Reports 4, Article number: 743 (2015) doi:10.1038/bonekey.2015.112. www.nature.com/bonekey

8. IAEA, Dual energy X ray absorptiometry for bone mineral density and body composition assessment, 2010; pg. 79; IAEA human health series, ISSN 2075–3772; no. 15: STI/PUB/1479; ISBN 978–92–0–110610–0.

9. Conversano F, Franchini R, Greco A, Soloperto G, Chiriacò F, Casciaro E, et al. A novel ultrasound methodology for estimating spine mineral density. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Jan;41(1):281-300. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.08.017. Epub 2014 Nov 15. PMID: 25438845.

10. Casciaro S, Peccarisi M, Pisani P, Franchini R, Greco A, De Marco T, et al. An Advanced Quantitative Echosound Methodology for Femoral Neck Densitometry, Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016 Jun;42(6):1337-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.01.024. Epub 2016 Mar 28. PMID: 27033331.

11. Pisani P, Greco A, Conversano F, Renna MD, Casciaro E, Quarta L, et al. A quantitative ultrasound approach to estimate bone fragility: A first comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Measurement, 2017 April;101:243-49. ISSN 0263-2241, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.07.033.

12. Pisani P, Conversano F, Muratore M, Adami G, Brandi ML, Caffarelli C, et al. Fragility Score: a REMS-based indicator for the prediction of incident fragility fractures at 5 years, Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023 Feb 8. doi:10.1007/s40520-023-02358-2. PMID: 3675295.

13. Aldolfo Diez-Perez, et al, Radiofrequency Echographic Multispectrometry for the in-vivo assessment of bone strength: state of the art – outcomes of an expert consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2019) 31: 1375-1389.

14. Nicholas R Fuggle, Jean-Yves Reginster, Nasser Al-Daghri, Olivier Bruyere, Nansa Burlet, Claudia Campusano, Cyrus Cooper, Adolfo Diez Perez, Philippe Halbout, Tullio Ghi, Jean-Marc Kaufman, Andreas Kurt, Radmila Matijevic, Regis P Radermecker, Sansin Tuzun, Nicola Veronese, Rene Rizzoli, Nicholas C Harvey, Maria Luisa Brandi, Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis: state of the art; Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2024) 36:135; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-024-02784-w.

15. D. Ciardo, P. Pisani, F. A. Lombardi, R. Franchini, F. Conversano, S. Casciaro, Incident Fracture Risk Prediction Using
The Fragility Score Calculated by Lumbar Spine Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (Rems) Scans, Ann Rheum Dis: first published as 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.2311 on 19 May 2021. http://ard.bmj.com/ on December 7, 2021.

16. Adami G, Arioli G, Bianchi G, Brandi ML, Caffarelli C, Cianferotti L, et al, Radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry for the prediction of incident fragility fractures: A 5-year follow-up study, Bone, 2020 May;134:115297. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115297. PMID: 32092480.

17. Cortet B, Dennison E, Diez-Perez A, Locquet M, Muratore M, Nogués X, et al. Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a European multicenter clinical context. Bone. 2021 Feb; 143:115786. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115786. Epub 2020 Dec 2. PMID: 33278653.

18. Peccarisi M, De Marco T, Conversano F, Pisani P, Spedicato L, Greco A, et al. In-vitro study of human proximal femur microstructure: analysis of the relationship between micro-computed tomography data and quantitative ultrasound parameters, IET Sci. Meas. Technol., 2016, Vol. 10, Is. 3, pp. 193–199, doi: 10.1049/iet-smt.2015.0041 www.ietdl.org.

19. Tommaso De Marco, Marco Peccarisi, Francesco Conversano, Antonio Greco, Samanta Chiozzi, Fabio De Pascalis, Sergio Casciaro, A new approach for measuring the trabecular bone density through the echosound backscattering: An ex vivo validation on human femoral heads; Measurement 87 (2016) 51–61; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.03.011

20. ISCD Clinician Course, Lecture 6 - Can you trust this DXA report, US Version, December 2020.

21. Silva BC, Leslie WD, Resch H, Lamy O, Lesnyak O, Binkley N, et al. Trabecular bone score: a noninvasive analytical method based upon the DXA image. J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Mar;29(3):518-30. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2176. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Nov;32(11):2319. PMID: 24443324.

22. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Morin SN, Lix LM. Why does rate of bone density loss not predict fracture risk? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):679-83. doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3777. Epub 2015 Jan 22. PMID: 25611114.

23. Garg MK, Kharb S. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: Pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Mar;17(2):203-10. doi:10.4103/2230-8210.109659. PMID: 23776890; PMCID: PMC3683192.\

24. Unnanuntana A, Gladnick BP, Donnelly E, Lane JM. The Assessment of Fracture Risk, J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; Mar;92(3):743-753. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00919

25. Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, et al. Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis, J Clin Endocrinol Metab, (2005) 90:2787-2793. https://doi.org/10.1210.jc.2005-1568

26. Zimmermann EA, Ritchie R. Bone as a Structural Material, Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2015; 4;(9):1287-1304, https//doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201500070

27. Murphy W. Structure Stability, International Journal of Solids and Structures. 37 (2000); 55-67.

28. Maryan Bobelyak, Jan Vaculik, Jan J. Stepan, Bone mineral density assessment using Radiofrequency Echographic Mult Spectrometry (REMS) in patients before and after total hip replacement, Osteoporosis International, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-025-07685-w

29. Dennis Chan, Weiwen Chen, Elizabeth Yabsley, Nicholas Pocock, Demographic determinants of REMS‑derived BMD and fragility score, Osteoporosis International: Published 23 March 2026; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-026-07960-4.

30. LeBoff MS, Greenspan SL, Insogna KL, Lewieki EM, Saag Kg, Singer Aj, Siris ES, The clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis; Osteoporosis International, 2022.

31. Chandran, M, Fracture Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice: Why Do It? What to Do It with? Journal of Clinical Densitometry, (20) 3: July-Sept. 2017, pp 274-279; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.010.

32. EchoStudio V.2.0, User Manual, September 2020, Echolight S.p.A.

33. Francesco Conversano, Paola Pisani, Sergio Casciaro, Methodological Clarification and Analysis of Demographic and Anthropometric Determinants in the Calculation of REMS Bone Mineral Density; Calcified Tissue International (2026) 117:85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-026-01547-1.

Our ability to optimally manage bone health across the lifecourse, and so minimise the risk of fractures, has advanced substantially in recent decades. Whilst fractures and osteoporosis in older age were historically viewed simply as inherent in normal ageing, they are now recognised as manifestatio...

06/29/2026

In this post I want to address an article published last year in the Journal Osteoporosis International which is considered to be one of the premier journals in the academic realm of bone health:

Maryan Bobelyak, Jan Vaculik, Jan J. Stepan, Bone mineral density assessment using Radiofrequency Echographic Mult Spectrometry (REMS) in patients before and after total hip replacement, Osteoporosis International, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-025-07685-w

The publication of this article has caused an uproar in the REMS community, not because it challenged the use of REMS but unfortunately because of the obvious errors in how the examiners performed their REMS assessment.

Academic discussion is essential for the advancement of knowledge, and it is actually a good thing that there are finally articles written that ask questions about REMS technology. It seemed that up to now REMS was being ignored. However, for academic discourse to be beneficial and productive, it is of utmost importance that the information presented be correct; otherwise, the discussion will result in misinformation. The concern of such an article persisting in the literature as a reliable source of information is that it will inevitably be cited resulting in the further propagation of misinformation. This is what is happening with the Bobelyak et al, article

The authors, Bobelyak et al, claimed to have performed a REMS assessment on a hip that was replaced – a THA. Anyone who routinely does REMS assessments knows that it is technically impossible to assess a THA with REMS. I addressed these concerns in a letter that wrote to the Editorial Board of Osteoporosis International as did many other users of REMS. At this time, I have not heard back from the Board. I am posting that letter:

September 20, 2025

Osteoporosis International
Editorial Board
RE: Article

Dear Editorial Board:

After reading the recent article on the use of REMS in assessing BMD prior to and following THA surgery, I have multiple concerns about the validity of the results documented in the article. Based on these concerns it is my opinion that the Editorial Board of Osteoporosis International should review the paper to determine its credibility.

The authors documented that they were able to measure the BMD of the femoral neck in a group of selected patients who were indicated for and underwent successful THA surgery both prior to and following the surgery. The results that were published indicated that they were able to obtain BMD measurements of the femoral neck utilizing REMS technology prior and following THA and that the BMD of the femoral neck following THA surgery was statistically lower than the BMD prior to surgery. As an accomplished REMS user with > 2000 REMS assessments over 4 years, I find that result improbable.

In addition to routinely using REMS in my bone health program, I am an orthopedic surgeon who has performed several thousand THA surgeries over my 30-year career. In a correctly performed THA, the femoral neck is resected to 1 cm. of the lesser trochanter. That technique is demonstrated in fig. 1 - image B, the postoperative x-ray. It is clearly visible that there is no femoral neck. Also, it can be ascertained from the x-ray that the prosthesis utilized was a proximal-fill type prosthesis that was implanted using a press-fit technique (not cemented). The preparation of the proximal femur following neck resection includes the machining of the proximal femur to remove cancellous bone to allow the prosthesis to establish 3-point fixation with the femur. The points of contact include the calcar, the lateral cortical bone below the trochanter and the medial cortical bone below the lesser trochanter. As is demonstrated by the x-ray, the prosthesis in addition to making the appropriate points of contact, fills the entirety of the femoral canal. Obtaining a sonographic assessment of the trabecular bone anywhere in this construct would be impossible.

In my years of performing REMS, I was never able to image a THA in the way described by the authors. I have successfully performed REMS evaluations on individuals with spinal hardware and cement, hip resurfacing, and ORIF of hip or proximal femoral fractures. In those cases, the anatomy of the bone being evaluated was preserved and there was enough native bone preserved to allow for the normal processes involved in REMS image recognition and data acquisition to proceed per established protocols. In individuals following THA, and in an individual with an altered anatomy of the proximal femur following a hip fracture treated non-surgically with a resulting malunion I could not obtain the necessary bone profile to allow for REMS assessment.

The method of bone identification and BMD and Fragility Score determination is detailed in:

1 – Casciaro S, Peccarisi M, Pisani P, et al (2016) An advanced quantitative echosound methodology for femoral neck densitometry. Ultrasound Med Biol, 42(6):1337–1356. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ultrasmedbio. 2016.01.024

2 – Conversano F, Franchini R, et al (2015) A novel ultrasound methodology for estimating spine mineral density. Ultrasound Med Biol 41(1):281–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ultrasmedbio. 2014. 08. 017

3 – Echolight REMS Technology Sheet

The process is multi-step including the filtering, identification, enhancement, amplification, and morphologic evaluation of the RF signals. Once the frames of the sonographic dataset have been analyzed the number of identified interfaces is assessed and if sufficient to yield a statistically reliable result, the diagnostic calculations are performed. As was noted by one of the authors, “The algorithm contains a spectral validation step. In this step, the spectra not similar enough to one of the reference models should be rejected.” However, the authors concluded that the “unique quality” of the titanium implant was “not rejected” and they were able to complete the REMS assessment. However, it is well known that metal (including titanium) has a sonographic signal very different from bone and due to the density of the metal, ultrasound will not pe*****te the prosthesis and a “shadow” will be cast. Also, the anatomic profile of the native femoral neck is completely different from that of a THA, it is highly unlikely that any of the processing steps could have proceeded. The images from the REMS scan provided by the authors also are concerning. Fig 1. images C & D show what appears to be a bone surface interface and they are identical even though fig 1. image D is the postoperative image where the femoral neck was resected. Surprisingly, there are no sonographic findings that would be consistent with the presence of a metal implant. The bone interface presented in fig. 1 images C & D are not consistent with images of the femoral neck but possible are images of the femoral shaft.

REMS is a novel technology for assessing bone structure that holds potential for a transformative effect on the field of bone health. It is important to correctly assess this technology to ensure that it is used appropriately and that the results of academic studies are clinically valid. Thank you for considering my request and for addressing my concerns.

Respectfully,

Andrew Bush MD

Summary REMS-BMD by radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry is primarily determined by a patient’s BMI, age, and s*x. Only about 2.8% of the changes in femoral neck REMS-BMD can be attributed to replacement of the total hip with metal implants. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate how total h...