Structural parameters of normal and osteoporotic human trabecular bone are affected differently by microCT image resolution

SummaryThis study employed microCT to investigate whether image resolution affects bone structural parameters differently in healthy normal and osteoporotic trabecular bone. With increasing image voxel size, the originally detected differences between sample groups diminished. The results suggest that structural differences may not be reliably detected with clinical scanners.IntroductionStructural parameters of bone reflect its health status, but are highly dependent on the image resolution. We hypothesized that image resolution affects bone structural parameters differently in normal and osteoporotic trabecular bone.MethodsHuman trabecular bone samples from the iliac crest and the knee were analyzed (normal n = 11, osteoporotic n = 15) using a high-resolution microCT (14 or 18 µm voxel sizes). Images were re-sampled to voxel sizes 1–16 times larger than the original image and thresholded with global or local adaptive algorithms. Absolute and normalized values of each structural parameter were calculated, and the effect of decreasing image resolution was compared between the normal and osteoporotic samples.ResultsNormal and osteoporotic samples had different (p < 0.05) absolute bone volume fractions. However, the normalized values showed that the osteoporotic samples were more prone to errors (p < 0.05) with increased voxel size. The absolute values of trabecular number, trabecular separation, degree of anisotropy, and structure model index were different between the groups at the original voxel size (p < 0.05), but at voxel sizes between 60 and 110 µm, those differences were no longer significant.ConclusionsThe results suggest that structural differences between osteoporotic and normal trabecular bone may not be reliably detected with clinical CT scanners providing image voxel sizes above 100 µm.

[1]  Volker Kuhn,et al.  Sex Differences of Human Trabecular Bone Microstructure in Aging Are Site‐Dependent , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[2]  S. Majumdar,et al.  In Vivo Determination of Bone Structure in Postmenopausal Women: A Comparison of HR‐pQCT and High‐Field MR Imaging , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  G. H. van Lenthe,et al.  Non-invasive bone competence analysis by high-resolution pQCT: an in vitro reproducibility study on structural and mechanical properties at the human radius. , 2009, Bone.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[5]  S. K. Boyd,et al.  Signs of irreversible architectural changes occur early in the development of experimental osteoporosis as assessed by in vivo micro-CT , 2008, Osteoporosis International.

[6]  J. Pasco,et al.  The population burden of fractures originates in women with osteopenia, not osteoporosis , 2006, Osteoporosis International.

[7]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[8]  Daniel Chappard,et al.  Comparison Insight Bone Measurements by Histomorphometry and μCT , 2005 .

[9]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Feasibility of Measuring Trabecular Bone Structure of the Proximal Femur Using 64-Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography in a Clinical Setting , 2008, Calcified Tissue International.

[10]  Thomas E.Andreoli Cecil essentials of medicine , 1993 .

[11]  S. Papapoulos,et al.  Report on Osteoporosis in the European Community: Current Status and Recommendations for the Future , 1998, Osteoporosis International.

[12]  D B Burr,et al.  Bone material properties and mineral matrix contributions to fracture risk or age in women and men. , 2002, Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions.

[13]  Ego Seeman,et al.  Changes in bone mineral density explain little of the reduction in vertebral or nonvertebral fracture risk with anti-resorptive therapy. , 2004, Bone.

[14]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Metabolic status of human trabecular bone affects reproducibility and agreement of microCT and histomorphometry , 2009 .

[15]  Bert Van Rietbergen,et al.  Finite Element Analysis Based on In Vivo HR‐pQCT Images of the Distal Radius Is Associated With Wrist Fracture in Postmenopausal Women , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[16]  K. Thorngren,et al.  One fracture is enough!: Experience with a prospective and consecutive osteoporosis screening program with 239 fracture patients , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[17]  David P Fyhrie,et al.  The effect of microcomputed tomography scanning and reconstruction voxel size on the accuracy of stereological measurements in human cancellous bone. , 2004, Bone.

[18]  S. Giannini,et al.  Bone microarchitecture as an important determinant of bone strength , 2004, Journal of endocrinological investigation.

[19]  M. Bouxsein,et al.  In vivo assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. , 2005, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[20]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Impact of spatial resolution on the prediction of trabecular architecture parameters. , 1998, Bone.

[21]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[22]  W. O'Fallon,et al.  Long‐term fracture prediction by bone mineral assessed at different skeletal sites , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[23]  Sharmila Majumdar,et al.  Clinical utility of microarchitecture measurements of trabecular bone , 2006, Current osteoporosis reports.

[24]  S. Majumdar,et al.  In Vivo Assessment of Architecture and Micro-Finite Element Analysis Derived Indices of Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone in the Radius , 2002, Osteoporosis International.

[25]  Daniel Chappard,et al.  Comparison insight bone measurements by histomorphometry and microCT. , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[26]  P. Rüegsegger,et al.  A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture , 2006, Calcified Tissue International.

[27]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Processing and Analysis of In Vivo High-Resolution MR Images of Trabecular Bone for Longitudinal Studies: Reproducibility of Structural Measures and Micro-Finite Element Analysis Derived Mechanical Properties , 2002, Osteoporosis International.

[28]  P Rüegsegger,et al.  Resolution dependency of microstructural properties of cancellous bone based on three-dimensional mu-tomography. , 1996, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[29]  Tony M Keaveny,et al.  Role of Trabecular Microarchitecture in Whole‐Vertebral Body Biomechanical Behavior , 2009, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[30]  Juha Töyräs,et al.  Ultrasonic characterization of human trabecular bone microstructure , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  Harrie Weinans,et al.  An improved segmentation method for in vivo microCT imaging. , 2004, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[32]  R. Huiskes,et al.  Bone Degeneration and Recovery after Early and Late Bisphosphonate Treatment of Ovariectomized Wistar Rats Assessed by In Vivo Micro-Computed Tomography , 2008, Calcified Tissue International.

[33]  Andres Laib,et al.  Noninvasive monitoring of changes in structural cancellous bone parameters with a novel prototype micro-CT , 2009, Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism.

[34]  P Burckhardt,et al.  [Epidemiology of osteoporosis]. , 1997, Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift.

[35]  J. Kanis,et al.  Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: Synopsis of a WHO report , 1994, Osteoporosis International.

[36]  R. Huiskes,et al.  Fabric and elastic principal directions of cancellous bone are closely related. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[37]  TOR Hildebrand,et al.  Quantification of Bone Microarchitecture with the Structure Model Index. , 1997, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[38]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Resolution dependence of the non-metric trabecular structure indices. , 2008, Bone.

[39]  Harrie Weinans,et al.  An Improved Segmentation Method for In Vivo μCT Imaging , 2004 .

[40]  M P Akhter,et al.  Transmenopausal changes in the trabecular bone structure. , 2007, Bone.

[41]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Monitoring individual morphological changes over time in ovariectomized rats by in vivo micro-computed tomography. , 2006, Bone.

[42]  C. Chappard,et al.  Interindividual and intraspecimen variability of 3-D bone microarchitectural parameters in iliac crest biopsies imaged by conventional micro-computed tomography , 2008, Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism.

[43]  S Prohaska,et al.  Stereological measures of trabecular bone structure: comparison of 3D micro computed tomography with 2D histological sections in human proximal tibial bone biopsies , 2005, Journal of microscopy.