INTERMETHOD VARIATION IN BONE HISTOMORPHOMETRY - COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUAL AND COMPUTERIZED METHODS APPLIED TO ILIAC BONE BIOPSIES
INTERMETHOD VARIATION IN BONE HISTOMORPHOMETRY - COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUAL AND COMPUTERIZED METHODS APPLIED TO ILIAC BONE BIOPSIES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/8756-3282(85)90004-3
复制
发表时间：
1985-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
MEUNIER, PJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
CHAVASSIEUX, PM;ARLOT, ME;MEUNIER, PJ
在100例未钙化的经髂骨活检中评估了测量基本骨组织形态学参数的方法间差异。从50例患者中抽取两个连续样本（女性33例，男性17例，平均年龄52岁以上）。19年)用于诊断目的。诊断为骨质疏松症（n = 38），肾性骨营养不良（n = 18），原发性甲状旁腺功能亢进（n = 16），骨瘤（n = 12），转移性骨病（n = 2），甲状腺毒性骨（n = 2），氟中毒（n = 2）， 10例活检被认为是“正常”骨。小梁骨体积（TBV）分别用人工目镜和自动目镜（QUANTIMET 720-Cambridge Instruments, Cambridge, England）测量。采用手动和半自动（VIDEOPLAN-Kontron, Munich, West Germany）方法测量骨小梁吸收面（TRS）、骨小梁类骨面（TOS）和体积（TOV）。对8例经四环素双标治疗的患者，分别采用人工和半自动方法测定钙化率。除TOV外，自动和半自动方法的观察者间和观察者内变化均低于手动方法。对于所有参数，人工和计算机方法之间存在高度显著的相关性（0.98 >或> 0.90）。对于TBV和CR没有显著差异，但对于TBV， QUANTIMET显得更加敏感，即能够更好地检测到待测结构的低值。对于TRS，手动方法低估了低值，表现出低于半自动方法的敏感性。在100例活检中，VIDEOPLAN对TOS和TOV的类骨参数分别低估了13%和26%。这些低估可以通过修改测量程序或使用更高的放大倍率来纠正。总之，如果不考虑依赖于诊断的不同方法之间的差异，用一种方法测量的TRS和类骨参数不能与用另一种方法获得的结果进行比较。TBV优选自动法；TRS、TOS、CR的半自动方法；手动TOV方法。
The intermethod variation in the measurement of basic bone histomorphometric parameters was evaluated on 100 undecalcified transiliac bone biopsies. Two contiguous samples were taken from 50 patients (33 females; 17 males; mean age: 52 .+-. 19 years) for diagnostic purposes. The diagnoses were osteoporosis (n = 38), renal osteodystrophy (n = 18), primary hyperparathyroidism (n = 16), osteomalicia (n = 12), metastatic bone disease (n = 2), thyrotoxic bone (n = 2), fluorosis (n = 2), and 10 biopsies were considered as "normal" bone. Trabecular bone volume (TBV) was measured with both a manual integrating eyepiece and an automatic (QUANTIMET 720-Cambridge Instruments, Cambridge, England) method. Trabecular resorption surfaces (TRS), trabecular osteoid surfaces (TOS), and volume (TOV) were measured with both a manual and a semiautomatic (VIDEOPLAN-Kontron, Munich, West Germany) method. The calcification rate (CR) was measured with both a manual and a semiautomatic method in eight cases after double labeling with tetracycline. Inter- and intraobserver variations were always lower with the automatic and semiautomatic methods than with the manual method, except for TOV. For all the parameters there was a highly significant correlation between manual and computerized methods (0.98 > r > 0.90). For TBV and CR no significant difference was noted, but for TBV the QUANTIMET appeared more sensitive, that is, better able to detect low values of the structure to be measured. For TRS, the manual method underestimated low values and appeared less sensitive than the semiautomatic method. For the 100 biopsies, the VIDEOPLAN underestimated the osteoid parameters by 13% for TOS and 26% for TOV. These underestimations could be corrected by modifying measuring procedures or by using higher magnification. In conclusion, TRS and osteoid parameters measured with one method cannot be compared with the ones obtained with another, without considering the intermethod variations that depend on the diagnosis. The automatic method is preferred for TBV; the semiautomatic method for TRS, TOS, and CR; and the manual method for TOV.