Bousson V, Le Bras A, Roqueplan F, Kang Y, Mitton D, Kolta S, Bergot C, Skalli W, Vicaut E, Kalender W, Engelke K, Laredo J-D
Service de Radiologie Ostéo-Articulaire, Hôpital Lariboisière, 2, rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France, and Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Germany.
Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(6):855-64. doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0074-5. Epub 2006 Mar 18.
In assessing cervical fractures of the proximal femur, this in vitro quantitative computed tomography (QCT) study had three objectives: to compare QCT to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for predicting the failure load of the proximal femur, to compare the contributions of density and geometry to bone failure load, and to compare the contributions of cortical and trabecular bone to bone failure load. A novel three-dimensional (3D) analysis tool [medical image analysis framework (MIAF-Femur)] was used to analyze QCT scans.
The proximal ends of 28 excised femurs were studied (1) using QCT to separately measure bone mineral density (BMD) and geometric variables of trabecular and cortical bone, (2) using mechanical tests to failure in a stance configuration, and (3) using DXA to measure BMD. The variables were described with mean, standard deviation, and range. Correlation matrix and multivariate linear models were computed.
Among correlations, cortical thicknesses of the femoral neck were significantly correlated with femoral failure load, especially of the inferoanterior quadrant (r2=0.41; p<0.001), as was cortical volume at the "extended neck" (r2=0.41; p<0.001). Femoral failure load variance was best explained by a combination of QCT variables. Combining densitometric and geometric variables measured by QCT explained 76% of femoral failure load variance compared with 69% with the DXA model. Geometric variables (measured by QCT) explained 43% of femoral failure load variance compared with 72% for densitometric variables (measured by QCT). A model including only trabecular variables explained 52% of femoral failure load variance compared with 59% for a model including only cortical variables.
The QCT-MIAF reported here provides analysis of both geometric and densitometric variables characterizing cortical and trabecular bone. Confirmation of our results in an independent sample would suggest that QCT may better explain failure load variance for cervical fracture than the gold standard DXA-provided BMD.
在评估股骨近端的颈椎骨折时,这项体外定量计算机断层扫描(QCT)研究有三个目标:比较QCT与双能X线吸收法(DXA)以预测股骨近端的破坏载荷,比较密度和几何形状对骨破坏载荷的贡献,以及比较皮质骨和小梁骨对骨破坏载荷的贡献。一种新颖的三维(3D)分析工具[医学图像分析框架(MIAF - 股骨)]被用于分析QCT扫描。
对28个切除的股骨近端进行研究,(1)使用QCT分别测量骨矿物质密度(BMD)以及小梁骨和皮质骨的几何变量,(2)使用力学测试使其在站立姿势下失效,(3)使用DXA测量BMD。这些变量用均值、标准差和范围进行描述。计算相关矩阵和多元线性模型。
在相关性方面,股骨颈的皮质厚度与股骨破坏载荷显著相关,尤其是下前象限(r2 = 0.41;p < 0.001),“延长颈”处的皮质体积也是如此(r2 = 0.41;p < 0.001)。股骨破坏载荷方差最好由QCT变量的组合来解释。与DXA模型的69%相比,结合QCT测量的密度测定和几何变量可解释76%的股骨破坏载荷方差。几何变量(通过QCT测量)解释了43%的股骨破坏载荷方差,而密度测定变量(通过QCT测量)为72%。仅包含小梁变量的模型解释了52%的股骨破坏载荷方差,而仅包含皮质变量的模型为59%。
本文报道的QCT - MIAF提供了对表征皮质骨和小梁骨的几何和密度测定变量的分析。在独立样本中对我们结果的证实将表明,对于颈椎骨折,QCT可能比金标准DXA提供的BMD能更好地解释破坏载荷方差。