Sensitivity of QUS parameters to controlled variations of bone strength assessed with a cellular model

The physical principles underlying quantitative ultrasound (QUS) measurements are not fully understood yet. Therefore, the translation of QUS results into bone strength remains elusive. In the present study, we derive the sensitivity of broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) and speed of sound (SOS) to variations of bone strength. For this purpose, a mechanical cellular model is combined to a multiple regression resulting from the analysis of finite-difference time domain (FDTD) simulations. Specifically, we investigate how QUS variables respond to a variation in strength of 10%, realized either by a change in material properties or a change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV). The results show that except when BV/TV is high, the variations of BUA in response to a variation in strength realized by a pure change of BV/TV exceeds the technique imprecision and thus can be detected. When the variation of strength is realized by changes of compressive or shear stiffness, the response in QUS properties is dominated by the variation in C11, whereas changes in C44, remaining below the precision error, cannot be detected. The interpretation of these data, however, is not straightforward due to sparse description of elastic properties at the tissue level. To overcome the limitation of the cellular model, more realistic computational models such as micro- finite element analysis have to be considered.

[1]  F. Padilla,et al.  Optimal Prediction of Bone Mineral Density with Ultrasonic Measurements in Excised Human Femur , 2005, Calcified Tissue International.

[2]  R Barkmann,et al.  Numerical simulation of the dependence of quantitative ultrasonic parameters on trabecular bone microarchitecture and elastic constants. , 2006, Ultrasonics.

[3]  Yebin Jiang,et al.  Advanced Imaging Assessment of Bone Quality , 2006, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[4]  T G Leighton,et al.  Empirical angle-dependent Biot and MBA models for acoustic anisotropy in cancellous bone , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  E. Bossy,et al.  Three-dimensional simulation of ultrasound propagation through trabecular bone structures measured by synchrotron microtomography , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Robin O Cleveland,et al.  Derivation of elastic stiffness from site-matched mineral density and acoustic impedance maps , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  L. Mosekilde,et al.  Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. , 1987, Bone.

[8]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Importance of Individual Rods and Plates in the Assessment of Bone Quality and Their Contribution to Bone Stiffness , 2006, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[9]  Maryline Talmant,et al.  Three-dimensional simulations of ultrasonic axial transmission velocity measurement on cortical bone models. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  M. Panjabi,et al.  A Study of the Compressive Properties of Lumbar Vertebral Trabeculae: Effects of Tissue Characteristics , 1987, Spine.

[11]  G Berger,et al.  In vitro assessment of the relationship between acoustic properties and bone mass density of the calcaneus by comparison of ultrasound parametric imaging and quantitative computed tomography. , 1997, Bone.

[12]  L. S. Matthews,et al.  The mechanical properties of human tibial trabecular bone as a function of metaphyseal location. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  B Bianco,et al.  Computational methods for ultrasonic bone assessment. , 1999, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  R Huiskes,et al.  The role of an effective isotropic tissue modulus in the elastic properties of cancellous bone. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  L. Gibson The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  S A Goldstein,et al.  Mechanical properties of human trabecular bone lamellae quantified by nanoindentation. , 1998, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[17]  C. Chesnut,et al.  Perspective: Reconsidering the Effects of Antiresorptive Therapies in Reducing Osteoporotic Fracture , 2001, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[18]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  F. Duck Physical properties of tissue , 1990 .

[20]  Françoise Peyrin,et al.  Variation of Ultrasonic Parameters With Microstructure and Material Properties of Trabecular Bone: A 3D Model Simulation , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[21]  J. Currey,et al.  Separate effects of osteoporosis and density on the strength and stiffness of human cancellous bone. , 1993, Clinical biomechanics.

[22]  D Aubry,et al.  Effect of microstructure on the mechanical properties of Haversian cortical bone. , 2006, Bone.

[23]  W C Hayes,et al.  Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  A. Curnier,et al.  A 3D damage model for trabecular bone based on fabric tensors. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  R. Huiskes,et al.  A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[26]  W. C. Hayes,et al.  Stress distributions within the proximal femur during gait and falls: Implications for osteoporotic fracture , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[27]  G. Blake,et al.  Role of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. , 2007, Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

[28]  Rik Huiskes,et al.  The dependence of the elastic properties of osteoporotic cancellous bone on volume fraction and fabric. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[29]  R Huiskes,et al.  Speed of sound reflects Young's modulus as assessed by microstructural finite element analysis. , 2000, Bone.

[30]  Philippe K Zysset,et al.  A review of morphology-elasticity relationships in human trabecular bone: theories and experiments. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Ann L Oberg,et al.  Effects of Sex and Age on Bone Microstructure at the Ultradistal Radius: A Population‐Based Noninvasive In Vivo Assessment , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[32]  D Vashishth,et al.  Bone stiffness predicts strength similarly for human vertebral cancellous bone in compression and for cortical bone in tension. , 2000, Bone.

[33]  G. Pharr,et al.  The elastic properties of trabecular and cortical bone tissues are similar: results from two microscopic measurement techniques. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[34]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[35]  Françoise Peyrin,et al.  Attenuation in trabecular bone: A comparison between numerical simulation and experimental results in human femur. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  F. Linde,et al.  The effect of constraint on the mechanical behaviour of trabecular bone specimens. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[37]  Pascal Laugier,et al.  Simulation of Ultrasound Propagation Through Three-Dimensional Trabecular Bone Structures: Comparison with Experimental Data , 2006 .

[38]  Ming Ding,et al.  Age variations in the properties of human tibial trabecular bone. , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[39]  C. Roux,et al.  What is the role of DXA, QUS and bone markers in fracture prediction, treatment allocation and monitoring? , 2005, Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology.

[40]  M. Dalstra,et al.  Age variations in the properties of human tibial trabecular bone and cartilage , 1997, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[41]  H Weinans,et al.  Cancellous bone mechanical properties from normals and patients with hip fractures differ on the structure level, not on the bone hard tissue level. , 2002, Bone.

[42]  W C Van Buskirk,et al.  A continuous wave technique for the measurement of the elastic properties of cortical bone. , 1984, Journal of biomechanics.

[43]  P. Zysset,et al.  A combined atomic force microscopy and nanoindentation technique to investigate the elastic properties of bone structural units. , 2001, European cells & materials.

[44]  S A Goldstein,et al.  The relationship between the structural and orthogonal compressive properties of trabecular bone. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.

[45]  W. Lauriks,et al.  Ultrasonic wave propagation in human cancellous bone: application of Biot theory. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  C C Glüer,et al.  Monitoring Skeletal Changes by Radiological Techniques , 1999, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[47]  S C Cowin,et al.  The fabric dependence of the orthotropic elastic constants of cancellous bone. , 1990, Journal of biomechanics.

[48]  D P Fyhrie,et al.  Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[49]  R. B. Ashman,et al.  Elastic modulus of trabecular bone material. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[50]  Harry K. Genant,et al.  Quantitative Ultrasound: Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Status , 1999 .

[51]  A Hosokawa Simulation of ultrasound propagation through bovine cancellous bone using elastic and Biot's finite-difference time-domain methods. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.