In vivo assessment of bone structure and estimated bone strength by first- and second-generation HR-pQCT
In vivo assessment of bone structure and estimated bone strength by first- and second-generation HR-pQCT
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00198-016-3621-8
复制
发表时间：
2016-10-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Nishiyama, K. K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Agarwal, S.;Rosete, F.;Nishiyama, K. K.
骨强度取决于骨密度和微观结构。高分辨率外围定量计算机断层扫描（HR-pQCT）可以测量微观结构，但由于其分辨率而受到一定限制。我们将新的HR-pQCT扫描仪与现有技术进行了比较，发现大多数参数都非常一致。这项研究在解释不同设备的结果时很重要。最近，第二代HR-pQCT扫描仪（XCT2）与第一代设备（XCT1, 82 μ m）相比，具有更高的标称各向同性分辨率（61 μ m）。目前尚不清楚这两种设备的体内测量结果如何比较。在本研究中，我们获得并分析了体内XCT1和XCT2骨微结构测量值和估计强度。我们在同一天用XCT2和XCT1扫描了51名成年人（16名男性和35名女性，年龄44.8 +/- 16.0）。我们首先比较了XCT1和XCT2使用各自的标准患者方案获得的测量值。在XCT1中，微架构参数推导，而XCT2测量直接测量。我们还通过寻找感兴趣的重叠区域并使用XCT1的标准患者方案，将XCT2-D与XCT1进行了比较。除了桡骨和胫骨的皮质孔隙度（R(2) = 0.638）、小梁数量（R(2) = 0.694、0.787）和小梁厚度（R(2) = 0.569、0.527）外，XCT1和XCT2在大部分体积骨矿物质密度（vBMD）、小梁和皮质测量值（所有R(2) > 0.820）上都获得了极好的一致性。XCT1和XCT2-D测量结果除了桡骨和胫骨的小梁数量（R(2) = 0.524, 0.706）、小梁厚度（R(2) = 0.758, 0.734）和桡骨小梁分离（R(2) = 0.656）外，大部分测量结果（R(2)均为0.870）吻合良好。虽然对于更依赖于图像分辨率的参数应该谨慎一些，但我们的研究结果表明，第二代扫描可以与更广泛可用的第一代数据进行比较，并且可能对使用两代扫描仪的多中心和纵向研究有益。
Bone strength is dependent on bone density and microstructure. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) can measure microstructure but is somewhat limited due to its resolution. We compared a new HR-pQCT scanner to existing technology and found very good agreement for most parameters. This study will be important when interpreting results from different devices.Recently, a second-generation HR-pQCT scanner (XCT2) has been developed with a higher nominal isotropic resolution (61 mu m) compared to the first-generation device (XCT1, 82 mu m). It is unclear how in vivo measurements from these two devices compare. In this study, we obtained and analyzed in vivo XCT1 and XCT2 measurements of bone microarchitecture and estimated strength.We scanned 51 adults (16 men and 35 women, age 44.8 +/- 16.0) on both XCT2 and XCT1 on the same day. We first compared XCT1 and XCT2 measurements obtained using their respective standard patient protocols. In XCT1, microarchitecture parameters were derived, while XCT2 measurements were directly measured. We also compared XCT2-D with XCT1 by finding the overlapping regions of interest and using the standard patient protocol for XCT1.We obtained excellent agreement between XCT1 and XCT2 for most of the volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), trabecular and cortical measurements (All R (2) > 0.820) except for cortical porosity at the radius (R (2) = 0.638), trabecular number (R (2) = 0.694, 0.787) and trabecular thickness (R (2) = 0.569, 0.527) at both radius and tibia, respectively. XCT1 and XCT2-D measurements also had excellent agreement for most of the measurements (all R (2) > 0.870) except trabecular number (R (2) = 0.524, 0.706), trabecular thickness (R (2) = 0.758, 0.734) at both radius and tibia, respectively, and trabecular separation (R (2) = 0.656) at the radius.While some caution should be exercised for parameters that are more dependent on image resolution, results from our study indicate that second-generation scans can be compared to more widely available first-generation data and may be beneficial for multicenter and longitudinal studies using both scanner generations.