S Bonaretti1,2, S Majumdar1, T F Lang1, S Khosla3, A J Burghardt4. 1. Musculoskeletal Quantitative Imaging Research Group, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, QB3 Building, Suite 203, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Musculoskeletal Quantitative Imaging Research Group, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, QB3 Building, Suite 203, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. andrew.burghardt@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
We investigated the sensitivity of distal bone density, structure, and strength measurements by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to variability in limb length. Our results demonstrate that HR-pQCT should be performed at a standard %-of-total-limb-length to avoid substantial measurement bias in population study comparisons and the evaluation of individual skeletal status in a clinical context. INTRODUCTION: High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measures of bone do not account for anatomic variability in bone length: a 1-cm volume is acquired at a fixed offset from an anatomic landmark. Our goal was to evaluate HR-pQCT measurement variability introduced by imaging fixed vs. proportional volumes and to propose a standard protocol for relative anatomic positioning. METHODS: Double-length (2-cm) scans were acquired in 30 adults. We compared measurements from 1-cm sub-volumes located at the default fixed offset, and the average %-of-length offset. The average position corresponded to 4.0% ± 1.1 mm for radius, and 7.2% ± 2.2 mm for tibia. We calculated the RMS difference in bone parameters and T-scores to determine the measurement variability related to differences in limb length. We used anthropometric ratios to estimate the mean limb length for published HR-pQCT reference data, and then calculated mean %-of-length offsets. RESULTS: Variability between fixed vs. relative scan positions was highest in the radius, and for cortical bone in general (RMS difference Ct.Th = 19.5%), while individuals had T-score differentials as high as +3.0 SD (radius Ct.BMD). We estimated that average scan position for published HR-pQCT reference data corresponded to 4.0% at the radius, and 7.3% at tibia. CONCLUSION: Variability in limb length introduces significant bias to HR-pQCT measures, confounding cross-sectional analyses and limiting the clinical application for individual assessment of skeletal status. We propose to standardize scan positioning using 4.0 and 7.3% of total bone length for the distal radius and tibia, respectively.
We investigated the sensitivity of distal bone density, structure, and strength measurements by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to variability in limb length. Our results demonstrate that HR-pQCT should be performed at a standard %-of-total-limb-length to avoid substantial measurement bias in population study comparisons and the evaluation of individual skeletal status in a clinical context. INTRODUCTION: High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measures of bone do not account for anatomic variability in bone length: a 1-cm volume is acquired at a fixed offset from an anatomic landmark. Our goal was to evaluate HR-pQCT measurement variability introduced by imaging fixed vs. proportional volumes and to propose a standard protocol for relative anatomic positioning. METHODS: Double-length (2-cm) scans were acquired in 30 adults. We compared measurements from 1-cm sub-volumes located at the default fixed offset, and the average %-of-length offset. The average position corresponded to 4.0% ± 1.1 mm for radius, and 7.2% ± 2.2 mm for tibia. We calculated the RMS difference in bone parameters and T-scores to determine the measurement variability related to differences in limb length. We used anthropometric ratios to estimate the mean limb length for published HR-pQCT reference data, and then calculated mean %-of-length offsets. RESULTS: Variability between fixed vs. relative scan positions was highest in the radius, and for cortical bone in general (RMS difference Ct.Th = 19.5%), while individuals had T-score differentials as high as +3.0 SD (radius Ct.BMD). We estimated that average scan position for published HR-pQCT reference data corresponded to 4.0% at the radius, and 7.3% at tibia. CONCLUSION: Variability in limb length introduces significant bias to HR-pQCT measures, confounding cross-sectional analyses and limiting the clinical application for individual assessment of skeletal status. We propose to standardize scan positioning using 4.0 and 7.3% of total bone length for the distal radius and tibia, respectively.
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: Martin Nilsson; Daniel Sundh; Claes Ohlsson; Magnus Karlsson; Dan Mellström; Mattias Lorentzon Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Pawel Szulc; Stéphanie Boutroy; Nicolas Vilayphiou; Ali Chaitou; Pierre D Delmas; Roland Chapurlat Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; B Lawrence Riggs; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Ann L Oberg; Lisa J McDaniel; Margaret Holets; James M Peterson; L Joseph Melton Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Andrew J Burghardt; Galateia J Kazakia; Sweta Ramachandran; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Lisa Langsetmo; Katherine W Peters; Andrew J Burghardt; Kristine E Ensrud; Howard A Fink; Peggy M Cawthon; Jane A Cauley; John T Schousboe; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Eric S Orwoll Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: K E Ensrud; T N Vo; A J Burghardt; J T Schousboe; J A Cauley; B C Taylor; A R Hoffman; E S Orwoll; N E Lane; L Langsetmo Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.507
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: Jane A Cauley; Andrew J Burghardt; Stephanie L Harrison; Peggy M Cawthon; Ann V Schwartz; Elizabeth Barrett Connor; Kristine E Ensrud; Lisa Langsetmo; Sharmila Majumdar; Eric Orwoll Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 6.741
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: Lilian Sewing; Laura Potasso; Sandra Baumann; Denis Schenk; Furkan Gazozcu; Kurt Lippuner; Marius Kraenzlin; Philippe Zysset; Christian Meier Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.390