Cargando…
Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images
OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is frequently used to measure the areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in clinical practice. However, DXA measurements are affected by the bone thickness and the body size and are unable to indicate nonosseous areas within the trabecular bone. This stu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5848114/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29682551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/6284269 |
_version_ | 1783305825023950848 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Yan-Lin Hsu, Jui-Ting Shih, Tian-Yu Luzhbin, Dmytro Tu, Chun-Yuan Wu, Jay |
author_facet | Liu, Yan-Lin Hsu, Jui-Ting Shih, Tian-Yu Luzhbin, Dmytro Tu, Chun-Yuan Wu, Jay |
author_sort | Liu, Yan-Lin |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is frequently used to measure the areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in clinical practice. However, DXA measurements are affected by the bone thickness and the body size and are unable to indicate nonosseous areas within the trabecular bone. This study aims to quantify the volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) using computed tomography (CT) images and the two-compartment model (TCM) methods. METHODS: The TCM method was proposed and validated by dipotassium phosphate (K(2)HPO(4)) phantoms and a standard forearm phantom. 28 cases with DXA scans and pelvic CT scans acquired within six months were retrospectively collected. The vBMD calculated by TCM was compared with the aBMD obtained from DXA. RESULTS: For the K(2)HPO(4) phantoms with vBMD ranging from 0.135 to 0.467 g/cm(3), the average difference between the real and calculated vBMD was 0.009 g/cm(3) and the maximum difference was 0.019 g/cm(3). For the standard forearm phantom with vBMD of 0.194, 0.103, and 0.054 g/cm(3), the average differences between the real and calculated vBMD were 0.017, 0.014, and 0.011 g/cm(3). In the clinical CT image validation, a good linear relationship between vBMD and aBMD was observed with the Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.920 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed TCM method in combination with the homemade cortical bone equivalent phantom provides accurate quantification and spatial distribution of bone mineral content. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5848114 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58481142018-04-22 Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images Liu, Yan-Lin Hsu, Jui-Ting Shih, Tian-Yu Luzhbin, Dmytro Tu, Chun-Yuan Wu, Jay Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is frequently used to measure the areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in clinical practice. However, DXA measurements are affected by the bone thickness and the body size and are unable to indicate nonosseous areas within the trabecular bone. This study aims to quantify the volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) using computed tomography (CT) images and the two-compartment model (TCM) methods. METHODS: The TCM method was proposed and validated by dipotassium phosphate (K(2)HPO(4)) phantoms and a standard forearm phantom. 28 cases with DXA scans and pelvic CT scans acquired within six months were retrospectively collected. The vBMD calculated by TCM was compared with the aBMD obtained from DXA. RESULTS: For the K(2)HPO(4) phantoms with vBMD ranging from 0.135 to 0.467 g/cm(3), the average difference between the real and calculated vBMD was 0.009 g/cm(3) and the maximum difference was 0.019 g/cm(3). For the standard forearm phantom with vBMD of 0.194, 0.103, and 0.054 g/cm(3), the average differences between the real and calculated vBMD were 0.017, 0.014, and 0.011 g/cm(3). In the clinical CT image validation, a good linear relationship between vBMD and aBMD was observed with the Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.920 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed TCM method in combination with the homemade cortical bone equivalent phantom provides accurate quantification and spatial distribution of bone mineral content. Hindawi 2018-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5848114/ /pubmed/29682551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/6284269 Text en Copyright © 2018 Yan-Lin Liu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Liu, Yan-Lin Hsu, Jui-Ting Shih, Tian-Yu Luzhbin, Dmytro Tu, Chun-Yuan Wu, Jay Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title | Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title_full | Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title_fullStr | Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title_short | Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images |
title_sort | quantification of volumetric bone mineral density of proximal femurs using a two-compartment model and computed tomography images |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5848114/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29682551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/6284269 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liuyanlin quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages AT hsujuiting quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages AT shihtianyu quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages AT luzhbindmytro quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages AT tuchunyuan quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages AT wujay quantificationofvolumetricbonemineraldensityofproximalfemursusingatwocompartmentmodelandcomputedtomographyimages |