Cargando…

2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software

Introduction: Osteoporosis is currently diagnosed based on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) computed from 2D DXA scans. However, aBMD is a limited surrogate for femoral strength since it does not account for 3D bone geometry and density distribution. QCT scans combined with finite element (FE) anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dudle, Alice, Gugler, Yvan, Pretterklieber, Michael, Ferrari, Serge, Lippuner, Kurt, Zysset, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10014626/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36937766
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1111020
_version_ 1784907036897574912
author Dudle, Alice
Gugler, Yvan
Pretterklieber, Michael
Ferrari, Serge
Lippuner, Kurt
Zysset, Philippe
author_facet Dudle, Alice
Gugler, Yvan
Pretterklieber, Michael
Ferrari, Serge
Lippuner, Kurt
Zysset, Philippe
author_sort Dudle, Alice
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Osteoporosis is currently diagnosed based on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) computed from 2D DXA scans. However, aBMD is a limited surrogate for femoral strength since it does not account for 3D bone geometry and density distribution. QCT scans combined with finite element (FE) analysis can deliver improved femoral strength predictions. However, non-negligible radiation dose and high costs prevent a systematic usage of this technique for screening purposes. As an alternative, the 3D-Shaper software (3D-Shaper Medical, Spain) reconstructs the 3D shape and density distribution of the femur from 2D DXA scans. This approach could deliver a more accurate estimation of femoral strength than aBMD by using FE analysis on the reconstructed 3D DXA. Methods: Here we present the first independent evaluation of the software, using a dataset of 77 ex vivo femora. We extend a prior evaluation by including the density distribution differences, the spatial correlation of density values and an FE analysis. Yet, cortical thickness is left out of this evaluation, since the cortex is not resolved in our FE models. Results: We found an average surface distance of 1.16 mm between 3D DXA and QCT images, which shows a good reconstruction of the bone geometry. Although BMD values obtained from 3D DXA and QCT correlated well (r (2) = 0.92), the 3D DXA BMD were systematically lower. The average BMD difference amounted to 64 mg/cm(3), more than one-third of the 3D DXA BMD. Furthermore, the low correlation (r (2) = 0.48) between density values of both images indicates a limited reconstruction of the 3D density distribution. FE results were in good agreement between QCT and 3D DXA images, with a high coefficient of determination (r (2) = 0.88). However, this correlation was not statistically different from a direct prediction by aBMD. Moreover, we found differences in the fracture patterns between the two image types. QCT-based FE analysis resulted mostly in femoral neck fractures and 3D DXA-based FE in subcapital or pertrochanteric fractures. Discussion: In conclusion, 3D-Shaper generates an altered BMD distribution compared to QCT but, after careful density calibration, shows an interesting potential for deriving a standardized femoral strength from a DXA scan.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10014626
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100146262023-03-16 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software Dudle, Alice Gugler, Yvan Pretterklieber, Michael Ferrari, Serge Lippuner, Kurt Zysset, Philippe Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Introduction: Osteoporosis is currently diagnosed based on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) computed from 2D DXA scans. However, aBMD is a limited surrogate for femoral strength since it does not account for 3D bone geometry and density distribution. QCT scans combined with finite element (FE) analysis can deliver improved femoral strength predictions. However, non-negligible radiation dose and high costs prevent a systematic usage of this technique for screening purposes. As an alternative, the 3D-Shaper software (3D-Shaper Medical, Spain) reconstructs the 3D shape and density distribution of the femur from 2D DXA scans. This approach could deliver a more accurate estimation of femoral strength than aBMD by using FE analysis on the reconstructed 3D DXA. Methods: Here we present the first independent evaluation of the software, using a dataset of 77 ex vivo femora. We extend a prior evaluation by including the density distribution differences, the spatial correlation of density values and an FE analysis. Yet, cortical thickness is left out of this evaluation, since the cortex is not resolved in our FE models. Results: We found an average surface distance of 1.16 mm between 3D DXA and QCT images, which shows a good reconstruction of the bone geometry. Although BMD values obtained from 3D DXA and QCT correlated well (r (2) = 0.92), the 3D DXA BMD were systematically lower. The average BMD difference amounted to 64 mg/cm(3), more than one-third of the 3D DXA BMD. Furthermore, the low correlation (r (2) = 0.48) between density values of both images indicates a limited reconstruction of the 3D density distribution. FE results were in good agreement between QCT and 3D DXA images, with a high coefficient of determination (r (2) = 0.88). However, this correlation was not statistically different from a direct prediction by aBMD. Moreover, we found differences in the fracture patterns between the two image types. QCT-based FE analysis resulted mostly in femoral neck fractures and 3D DXA-based FE in subcapital or pertrochanteric fractures. Discussion: In conclusion, 3D-Shaper generates an altered BMD distribution compared to QCT but, after careful density calibration, shows an interesting potential for deriving a standardized femoral strength from a DXA scan. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10014626/ /pubmed/36937766 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1111020 Text en Copyright © 2023 Dudle, Gugler, Pretterklieber, Ferrari, Lippuner and Zysset. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Dudle, Alice
Gugler, Yvan
Pretterklieber, Michael
Ferrari, Serge
Lippuner, Kurt
Zysset, Philippe
2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title_full 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title_fullStr 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title_full_unstemmed 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title_short 2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software
title_sort 2d-3d reconstruction of the proximal femur from dxa scans: evaluation of the 3d-shaper software
topic Bioengineering and Biotechnology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10014626/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36937766
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1111020
work_keys_str_mv AT dudlealice 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware
AT gugleryvan 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware
AT pretterkliebermichael 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware
AT ferrariserge 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware
AT lippunerkurt 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware
AT zyssetphilippe 2d3dreconstructionoftheproximalfemurfromdxascansevaluationofthe3dshapersoftware