| Literature DB >> 29780823 |
Xingxing Chou1, Feng Xu1, Ying Li1, Chengcheng Liu2, Dean Ta1,3,4, Lawrence H Le5.
Abstract
To determine the relationship between the ultrasonic backscatter parameters and trabecular microstructural variations in cancellous bone, three erosion procedures were performed to simulate various changes in the cancellous bone microstructure. The finite difference time domain (FDTD) method was used to simulate the backscatter signal in cancellous bone. Ultrasonic backscatter properties were derived as functions of the porosity when the ultrasound incident directions were perpendicular and parallel to the major trabeculae direction (MTD), respectively. The variability in the apparent backscatter coefficient (ABC) and apparent integrated backscatter (AIB) due to the trabecular microstructure was revealed. Significant negative correlations between the backscatter parameters (ABC and AIB) and the porosity of the cancellous bone were observed. The simulations showed that the ABC and AIB were influenced by the direction of the trabecular microstructural variations. The linear regressions between the ultrasonic backscatter parameters (ABC and AIB) and the porosity showed significantly different slopes for three erosion procedures when they are ultrasonically perpendicular (for ABC, -1.22 dB, -0.98 dB, and -0.46 dB; for AIB, -0.74 dB, -0.69 dB, and -0.25 dB) and parallel (for ABC, -1.87 dB, -0.69 dB, and -0.51 dB; for AIB, -0.9 dB, -0.5 dB, and -0.34 dB) to the MTD. This paper investigated the relationship between ultrasonic backscatter and cancellous bone microstructure deterioration and indicated that the ultrasonic backscatter could be affected by cancellous bone microstructure deterioration direction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29780823 PMCID: PMC5892598 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4786329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Deteriorations in trabecular microstructure simulated by three erosion procedures.
Figure 2Porosity of cancellous bone with respect to erosion times.
Figure 3The geometry of the simulation model.
Physical parameter values of cancellous bone [31].
| Trabeculae | Bone Marrow | |
|---|---|---|
| First Lamé coefficient (GPa) | 14.8 | 2.2 |
| Second Lamé coefficient (GPa) | 8.3 | 0 |
| Density (kg/m3) | 1960 | 1000 |
| Normal resistance coefficient (s−1) | 8 × 104 | 75 |
| Shear resistance coefficient (s−1) | 8 × 105 | 0 |
Figure 4Simulated backscatter signals and signal of interest selection.
Figure 5Relationships between ABC and cancellous bone porosity induced by different erosions for ultrasonic propagating perpendicular to the MTD.
Linear fitting for the ultrasonic backscatter parameters (ABC and AIB) versus the porosity of the three erosion procedures perpendicular and parallel to MTD1.
| Perpendicular to MTD | Parallel to MTD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure A | Procedure B | Procedure C | Procedure A | Procedure B | Procedure C | |
| ABC | ||||||
| Intercept (dB) | 51.59 | 31.16 | 0.02 | 96.27 | 13.10 | 285 |
| Slope (dB) | −1.22 | −0.98 | −0.46 | −1.87 | −0.69 | −0.51 |
| AIB | ||||||
| Intercept (dB) | 34.23 | 28.85 | 0.78 | 44.82 | 16.21 | 5.94 |
| Slope (dB) | −0.74 | −0.69 | −0.25 | −0.90 | −0.50 | −0.34 |
1All of the p values are below 0.01.
Figure 6Relationships between AIB and cancellous bone porosity induced by different erosions for ultrasonic propagating perpendicular to the MTD.
Figure 7Relationships between ABC and cancellous bone porosity induced by different erosions for ultrasonic propagation along the MTD.
Figure 8Relationships between AIB and cancellous bone porosity induced by different erosions for ultrasonic propagation along the MTD.