Validation and Optimization of Proximal Femurs Microstructure Analysis Using High Field and Ultra-High Field MRI.
air bubbles artefacts
biomechanical fracture test
bone microarchitecture
bone morphology
cadaveric human femur
gradient echo
osteoporosis
turbo spin echo
ultra-high field MRI
μCT
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2021
02 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
29
07
2021
revised:
25
08
2021
accepted:
31
08
2021
entrez:
28
9
2021
pubmed:
29
9
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Trabecular bone could be assessed non-invasively using MRI. However, MRI does not yet provide resolutions lower than trabecular thickness and a comparative analysis between different MRI sequences at different field strengths and X-ray microtomography (μCT) is still missing. In this study, we compared bone microstructure parameters and bone mineral density (BMD) computed using various MRI approaches, i.e., turbo spin echo (TSE) and gradient recalled echo (GRE) images used at different magnetic fields, i.e., 7T and 3T. The corresponding parameters computed from μCT images and BMD derived from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were used as the ground truth. The correlation between morphological parameters, BMD and fracture load assessed by mechanical compression tests was evaluated. Histomorphometric parameters showed a good agreement between 7T TSE and μCT, with 8% error for trabecular thickness with no significative statistical difference and a good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.5) for all the extrapolated parameters. No correlation was found between DXA-BMD and all morphological parameters, except for trabecular interconnectivity (R
Identifiants
pubmed: 34573945
pii: diagnostics11091603
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11091603
pmc: PMC8466948
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Horizon 2020
ID : 713750
Références
Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):464-74
pubmed: 24689884
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Nov;16(11):1307-14
pubmed: 15999292
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Osteoporos Int. 2015 May;26(5):1543-54
pubmed: 25644147
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Apr;27(4):854-9
pubmed: 18383263
Calcif Tissue Int. 1983 May;35(3):268-72
pubmed: 6871757
Osteoporos Int. 2008 May;19(5):653-61
pubmed: 17992467
J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Mar;19(3):379-85
pubmed: 15040825
Bone. 2018 Mar;108:71-78
pubmed: 29278746
Bone. 2004 Jan;34(1):195-202
pubmed: 14751578
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998 Aug;17(4):586-95
pubmed: 9845314
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jan;23(1):163-9
pubmed: 21739104
Eur Radiol. 2010 Nov;20(11):2707-14
pubmed: 20559834
Indian J Orthop. 2010 Jan;44(1):73-8
pubmed: 20165680
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jul;40(1):229-38
pubmed: 24711013
Magn Reson Med. 2009 May;61(5):1114-21
pubmed: 19215044
PLoS One. 2021 May 19;16(5):e0251788
pubmed: 34010320
Bone. 1995 Aug;17(2):157-9
pubmed: 8554924
Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2018 Jan/Mar;40(1):8-15
pubmed: 29384769
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Aug;469(8):2179-93
pubmed: 21344275
Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):608-619
pubmed: 29457963
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Mar;20(3):445-53
pubmed: 18661091
Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):1893-903
pubmed: 22482611
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020 Jan;101(1):45-53
pubmed: 31331831
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Aug;46(2):323-337
pubmed: 28165650
J Clin Densitom. 2002 Fall;5(3):289-96
pubmed: 12357066
Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:136
pubmed: 24113837
J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Jan;12(1):111-8
pubmed: 9240733
Semin Oncol. 2011 Feb;38(1):128-35
pubmed: 21362521
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Nov;22(5):647-55
pubmed: 16215967
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar 02;22(5):
pubmed: 33801539
NMR Biomed. 2014 Jul;27(7):739-48
pubmed: 24846186
Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):25-35
pubmed: 9029539
Osteoporos Int. 1996;6(5):376-85
pubmed: 8931032
Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(3):231-9
pubmed: 10525716