Cargando…

Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis

Non-invasive and/or non-destructive techniques can provide structural information about bone, beyond simple bone densitometry. While the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, many studies indicate that BMD only partly explains bone strength. Quantitative assessment...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Genant, H. K., Engelke, K., Prevrhal, S.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18556648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken180
_version_ 1782156326333317120
author Genant, H. K.
Engelke, K.
Prevrhal, S.
author_facet Genant, H. K.
Engelke, K.
Prevrhal, S.
author_sort Genant, H. K.
collection PubMed
description Non-invasive and/or non-destructive techniques can provide structural information about bone, beyond simple bone densitometry. While the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, many studies indicate that BMD only partly explains bone strength. Quantitative assessment of macro- and microstructural features may improve our ability to estimate bone strength. Methods for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) DXA and CT, particularly volumetric quantitative CT (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone non-invasively and/or non-destructively include high-resolution CT (hrCT), microCT (μCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR) and microMR (μMR). vQCT, hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; μCT and μMR are principally applicable in vitro. Despite recent progress made with these advanced imaging techniques, certain issues 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, compared with their monitoring applications, requiring high precision or reproducibility.
format Text
id pubmed-2427166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-24271662009-02-25 Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis Genant, H. K. Engelke, K. Prevrhal, S. Rheumatology (Oxford) Articles Non-invasive and/or non-destructive techniques can provide structural information about bone, beyond simple bone densitometry. While the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, many studies indicate that BMD only partly explains bone strength. Quantitative assessment of macro- and microstructural features may improve our ability to estimate bone strength. Methods for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) DXA and CT, particularly volumetric quantitative CT (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone non-invasively and/or non-destructively include high-resolution CT (hrCT), microCT (μCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR) and microMR (μMR). vQCT, hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; μCT and μMR are principally applicable in vitro. Despite recent progress made with these advanced imaging techniques, certain issues 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, compared with their monitoring applications, requiring high precision or reproducibility. Oxford University Press 2008-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2427166/ /pubmed/18556648 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken180 Text en © 2008 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Articles
Genant, H. K.
Engelke, K.
Prevrhal, S.
Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title_full Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title_fullStr Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title_full_unstemmed Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title_short Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis
title_sort advanced ct bone imaging in osteoporosis
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18556648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken180
work_keys_str_mv AT genanthk advancedctboneimaginginosteoporosis
AT engelkek advancedctboneimaginginosteoporosis
AT prevrhals advancedctboneimaginginosteoporosis