C E Kawalilak1, J D Johnston2, D M L Cooper3, W P Olszynski4, S A Kontulainen5. 1. College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, 87 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B2, Canada. chantal.kawalilak@usask.ca. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, Canada. jd.johnston@usask.ca. 3. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada. dml.cooper@usask.ca. 4. Director of the Saskatoon CaMos Centre; College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 39 23rd St E Suite 103, Saskatoon, SK, S7K 0H6, Canada. wpolszynski@sasktel.net. 5. College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, 87 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B2, Canada. saija.kontulainen@usask.ca.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Precision errors of cortical bone micro-architecture from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) ranged from 1 to 16 % and did not differ between automatic or manually modified endocortical contour methods in postmenopausal women or young adults. In postmenopausal women, manually modified contours led to generally higher cortical bone properties when compared to the automated method. INTRODUCTION: First, the objective of the study was to define in vivo precision errors (coefficient of variation root mean square (CV%RMS)) and least significant change (LSC) for cortical bone micro-architecture using two endocortical contouring methods: automatic (AUTO) and manually modified (MOD) in two groups (postmenopausal women and young adults) from high-resolution pQCT (HR-pQCT) scans. Second, it was to compare precision errors and bone outcomes obtained with both methods within and between groups. METHODS: Using HR-pQCT, we scanned twice the distal radius and tibia of 34 postmenopausal women (mean age ± SD 74 ± 7 years) and 30 young adults (27 ± 9 years). Cortical micro-architecture was determined using AUTO and MOD contour methods. CV%RMS and LSC were calculated. Repeated measures and multivariate ANOVA were used to compare mean CV% and bone outcomes between the methods within and between the groups. Significance was accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: CV%RMS ranged from 0.9 to 16.3 %. Within-group precision did not differ between evaluation methods. Compared to young adults, postmenopausal women had better precision for radial cortical porosity (precision difference 9.3 %) and pore volume (7.5 %) with MOD. Young adults had better precision for cortical thickness (0.8 %, MOD) and tibial cortical density (0.2 %, AUTO). In postmenopausal women, MOD resulted in 0.2-54 % higher values for most cortical outcomes, as well as 6-8 % lower radial and tibial cortical BMD and 2 % lower tibial cortical thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that AUTO and MOD endocortical contour methods provide comparable repeatability. In postmenopausal women, manual modification of endocortical contours led to generally higher cortical bone properties when compared to the automated method, while no between-method differences were observed in young adults.
UNLABELLED: Precision errors of cortical bone micro-architecture from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) ranged from 1 to 16 % and did not differ between automatic or manually modified endocortical contour methods in postmenopausal women or young adults. In postmenopausal women, manually modified contours led to generally higher cortical bone properties when compared to the automated method. INTRODUCTION: First, the objective of the study was to define in vivo precision errors (coefficient of variation root mean square (CV%RMS)) and least significant change (LSC) for cortical bone micro-architecture using two endocortical contouring methods: automatic (AUTO) and manually modified (MOD) in two groups (postmenopausal women and young adults) from high-resolution pQCT (HR-pQCT) scans. Second, it was to compare precision errors and bone outcomes obtained with both methods within and between groups. METHODS: Using HR-pQCT, we scanned twice the distal radius and tibia of 34 postmenopausal women (mean age ± SD 74 ± 7 years) and 30 young adults (27 ± 9 years). Cortical micro-architecture was determined using AUTO and MOD contour methods. CV%RMS and LSC were calculated. Repeated measures and multivariate ANOVA were used to compare mean CV% and bone outcomes between the methods within and between the groups. Significance was accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: CV%RMS ranged from 0.9 to 16.3 %. Within-group precision did not differ between evaluation methods. Compared to young adults, postmenopausal women had better precision for radial cortical porosity (precision difference 9.3 %) and pore volume (7.5 %) with MOD. Young adults had better precision for cortical thickness (0.8 %, MOD) and tibial cortical density (0.2 %, AUTO). In postmenopausal women, MOD resulted in 0.2-54 % higher values for most cortical outcomes, as well as 6-8 % lower radial and tibial cortical BMD and 2 % lower tibial cortical thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that AUTO and MOD endocortical contour methods provide comparable repeatability. In postmenopausal women, manual modification of endocortical contours led to generally higher cortical bone properties when compared to the automated method, while no between-method differences were observed in young adults.
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Klaus Engelke; Judith E Adams; Gabriele Armbrecht; Peter Augat; Cesar E Bogado; Mary L Bouxsein; Dieter Felsenberg; Masako Ito; Sven Prevrhal; Didier B Hans; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Yohann Bala; Roger Zebaze; Ali Ghasem-Zadeh; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Sandra Iuliano; James M Peterson; Shreyasee Amin; Åshild Bjørnerem; L Joseph Melton; Helena Johansson; John A Kanis; Sundeep Khosla; Ego Seeman Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: D E Whittier; S K Boyd; A J Burghardt; J Paccou; A Ghasem-Zadeh; R Chapurlat; K Engelke; M L Bouxsein Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Ellis A C de Waard; Cindy Sarodnik; Alexander Pennings; Joost J A de Jong; Hans H C M Savelberg; Tineke A van Geel; Carla J van der Kallen; Coen D A Stehouwer; Miranda T Schram; Nicolaas Schaper; Pieter C Dagnelie; Piet P M M Geusens; Annemarie Koster; Bert van Rietbergen; Joop P W van den Bergh Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: W R D Duff; K M Björkman; C E Kawalilak; A M Kehrig; S Wiebe; S Kontulainen Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: C E Kawalilak; S A Kontulainen; M A Amini; J L Lanovaz; W P Olszynski; J D Johnston Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.362