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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Yan-Lin, Hsu, Jui-Ting, Shih, Tian-Yu, Luzhbin, Dmytro, Tu, Chun-Yuan, Wu, Jay
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