Imaging assessment of bone quality in osteoporosis

被引：7
作者：
Genant H.K. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Jiang J.Y. [3 ]
机构：
[1] University of California, San Francisco, CA
[2] Synarc, Inc., Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
[3] Osteoporosis and Arthritis Lab., Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
[4] Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA
来源：
Clinical Reviews in Bone and Mineral Metabolism | 2006年 / 4卷 / 3期
关键词：
Computed tomography; Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; High-resolution computed tomography; Imaging; Microcomputed tomography; MR microscopy; Osteoporosis; Volumetric quantitative computed tomography;
D O I：
10.1385/BMM:4:3:213
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Noninvasive and/or nondestructive techniques can provide structural information about bone beyond simple bone densitometry. Although bone densitometry provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, many studies indicate that bone mineral density only partly explains bone strength. Quantitative assessment of macrostructural characteristics, such as geometry, and microstructural features, such as relative trabecular volume, trabecular spacing, and connectivity, may improve the ability to estimate bone strength. Methods for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and computed tomography (CT), particularly volumetric quantitative computed tomography (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone noninvasively and/or nondestructively include high-resolution computed tomography (hrCT), microcomputed tomography (μCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR), and micromagnetic resonance μMR. Volumetric QCT, hrCT, and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; μCT and μMR are principally applicable in vitro. Despite progress, problems remain. The important balances between spatial resolution and sampling size, or between signal-to-noise and radiation dose or acquisition time, need further consideration, as do the complexity and expense of the methods vs their availability and accessibility. Clinically, the challenges for bone imaging include balancing the advantages of simple bone densitometry vs the more complex architectural features of bone or the deeper research requirements vs the broader clinical needs. The biological differences between the peripheral appendicular skeleton and the central axial skeleton must be further addressed. Finally, the relative merits of these sophisticated imaging techniques must be weighed with respect to their applications as diagnostic procedures, requiring high accuracy or reliability, vs their monitoring applications, requiring high precision or reproducibility. © Copyright 2006 by Humana Press Inc. All rights of any nature whatsoever reserved.
引用
收藏
页码：213 / 224
页数：11
相关论文
共 86 条
[1]  
Genant H.K., Engelke K., Fuerst T., Et al., Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: State of the art, J Bone Miner Res, 11, pp. 707-730, (1996)
[2]  
Faulkner K.G., Cann C.E., Hasegawa B.H., CT-derived finite element model to determine vertebral cortex strength, Medical Imaging IC: Image Processing, 1233, pp. 194-202, (1990)
[3]  
Lang T.F., Guglielmi G., Van Kuijk C., De Serio A., Cammisa M., Genant H.K., Measurement of bone mineral density at the spine and proximal femur by volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in elderly women with and without vertebral fractures, Bone, 30, pp. 247-250, (2002)
[4]  
Keyak J.H., Rossi S.A., Jones K.A., Skinner H.B., Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling, J Biomech, 31, pp. 125-133, (1998)
[5]  
Lang T.F., Li J., Harris S.T., Genant H.K., Assessment of vertebral bone mineral density using volumetric quantitative computed tomography, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 23, pp. 130-137, (1999)
[6]  
Lang T.F., Keyak J.H., Heitz M.W., Et al., Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: Precision and relation to bone strength, Bone, 21, pp. 101-108, (1997)
[7]  
Lotz J.C., Gerhart T.N., Hayes W.C., Mechanical properties of trabecular bone from the proximal femur: A quantitative CT study, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 14, pp. 107-114, (1990)
[8]  
McBroom R.J., Hayes W.C., Edwards W.T., Goldberg R.P., White III A.A., Prediction of vertebral body compressive fracture using quantitative computed tomography, J Bone Jt Surg Am, 67, pp. 1206-1214, (1985)
[9]  
Jergas M., Breitenseher M., Gluer C.C., Yu W., Genant H.K., Estimates of volumetric bone density from projectional measurements improve the discriminatory capability of dual X-ray absorptiometry, J Bone Miner Res, 10, pp. 1101-1110, (1995)
[10]  
Sode M., Keyak J., Bouxsein M., Lang T., Assessment of femoral neck torsional strength indices, Bone Miner Res, 19, (2004)
123456789