| Literature DB >> 30671863 |
Daisuke Nakashima1, Ken Ishii1,2, Yuji Nishiwaki3, Hiromasa Kawana4, Masahiro Jinzaki5, Morio Matsumoto1, Masaya Nakamura1, Takeo Nagura6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To predict conventional test forces (peak torque and pull-out force) and a new test force (implant stability quotient [ISQ] value of a spinal pedicle screw) from computed tomography (CT) parameters, including micro-architectural parameters, using high-resolution micro-CT and clinical multislice CT (MSCT) in human cadaveric vertebrae.Entities:
Keywords: Bone density; Pedicle screws; Resonance frequency analysis; Torque; X-ray (microtomography)
Year: 2019 PMID: 30671863 PMCID: PMC6342748 DOI: 10.1186/s41747-018-0080-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol Exp ISSN: 2509-9280
Fig. 1Multislice computed tomography. a Drawing of the in-house round rectangle-shaped tank. b Vertebrae in the tank. c Photograph of the tank and the phantom (*) in the scanner. d Axial image showing the phantom (*), one vertebra (**), and the surrounding water for mimicking a living body (***)
Fig. 2Test force measurement. a Peak torque measurement. b Implant stability quotient value measurement. c Pull-out force measurement
Fig. 3Micro-CT and MSCT imaging. a Micro-CT axial image of a vertebra. b Micro-CT axial image of a vertebra with a screw. c Three-dimensional micro-CT reconstruction of a vertebra with a screw. Cancellous bone area of the pedicle screw extracted by three-dimensional volume position adjustment between the pre- and post-insertion images: micro-CT (d) and MSCT (e)
Summary of the three test forces and parameters of the vertebrae on micro-CT and MSCT
| Measure unit | Mean (standard deviation) | |
|---|---|---|
| Test forces ( | ||
| Peak torque | N m | 678 (246) |
| Pull-out force | N | 357 (130) |
| Implant stability quotient value | Arbitrary units | 36.5 (7.90) |
| Micro-CT parameters ( | ||
| Volume bone mineral density | mg/cm3 | 69.6 (30.5) |
| Bone volume/total volume | – | 29.6 (10.7) |
| Bone surface/total volume | mm−1 | 1.80 (0.350) |
| Trabecular thickness | μm | 328 (73.0) |
| Trabecular separation | μm | 863 (328) |
| Trabecular number | mm−1 | 0.876 (0.170) |
| Structure model index | – | 1.86 (0.534) |
| Node number/total volume | mm−3 | 0.647 (0.159) |
| Multislice CT parameters ( | ||
| Volume bone mineral density | mg/cm3 | 183 (28.1) |
| Bone volume/total volume | – | 91.1 (10.8) |
| Bone surface/total volume | mm−1 | 4.16 (0.903) |
| Trabecular thickness | μm | 780 (252) |
| Trabecular separation | μm | 81.0 (14.2) |
| Trabecular number | mm−1 | 1.28 (0.416) |
| Node number/total volume | mm−3 | 0.764 (0.0230) |
CT computed tomography, N Newton
Fig. 4Scatter plots and best fit lines of linear regression among the three test forces. a Peak torque versus pull-out force. b Peak torque versus implant stability quotient (ISQ) value. c Pull-out force versus implant stability quotient value. N, Newton; N m Newton meter, a.u. arbitrary units
Correlation coefficients and p values for the three test forces versus CT parameters on micro-CT and multislice CT
| Micro-CT ( | Multislice CT ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Peak torque versus | Volume bone mineral density | 0.520 | 5.46 × 10−6* | 0.463 | 2.50 × 10−4* |
| Bone volume/total volume | 0.550 | 1.19 × 10−6* | 0.334 | 0.0103 | |
| Bone surface/total volume | 0.811 | 4.96 × 10−17* | 0.730 | 7.87 × 10−11* | |
| Trabecular thickness | 0.427 | 2.79 × 10−4* | 0.479 | 1.41 × 10−4* | |
| Trabecular separation | − 0.588 | 1.38 × 10−7* | − 0.267 | 0.0424 | |
| Trabecular number | 0.582 | 1.95 × 10−7* | − 0.489 | 9.66 × 10−5* | |
| Structure model index | − 0.437 | 1.96 × 10−4* | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Node number/total volume | 0.428 | 2.71 × 10−4* | − 0.069 | 0.608 | |
| Pull-out versus | Volume bone mineral density | 0.453 | 1.06 × 10−4* | 0.414 | 0.00124* |
| Bone volume/total volume | 0.467 | 5.86 × 10−5* | 0.320 | 0.0143 | |
| Bone surface/total volume | 0.730 | 1.64 × 10−12* | 0.693 | 1.64 × 10−9* | |
| Trabecular thickness | 0.361 | 0.00250* | 0.416 | 0.00118* | |
| Trabecular separation | − 0.519 | 5.68 × 10−6* | − 0.272 | 0.0391 | |
| Trabecular number | 0.529 | 3.54 × 10−6* | − 0.411 | 0.00137* | |
| Structure model index | − 0.360 | 0.00253* | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Node number/total volume | 0.483 | 3.02 × 10−5* | − 0.108 | 0.421 | |
| Implant stability quotient value versus | Volume bone mineral density | 0.0722 | 0.558 | − 0.103 | 0.444 |
| Bone volume/total volume | 0.0666 | 0.589 | − 0.0760 | 0.571 | |
| Bone surface/total volume | 0.237 | 0.0521 | 0.201 | 0.130 | |
| Trabecular thickness | − 0.0542 | 0.661 | − 0.106 | 0.427 | |
| Trabecular separation | − 0.158 | 0.197 | 0.0770 | 0.566 | |
| Trabecular number | 0.264 | 0.0299 | 0.0830 | 0.536 | |
| Structure model index | − 0.0134 | 0.914 | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Node number/total volume | 0.607 | 4.01 × 10−8* | 0.515 | 3.52 × 10−5* | |
CT computed tomography, N.A. not available
*Signifiant p value
Fig. 5Scatter plots and best fit lines of linear regression between test forces and micro-architectural parameters (bone surface density) or node number (number of branch points of the cancellous bone network/total volume) on micro-CT and MSCT. a Peak torque versus bone surface density (bone surface [BS]/total volume [TV]) on micro-CT. b Pull-out force versus BS/TV on micro-CT. c Implant stability quotient (ISQ) value versus node number (NNd)/TV on micro-CT. d Peak torque versus BS/TV on MSCT. e Pull-out force versus BS/TV on MSCT. f ISQ value versus NNd/TV on MSCT. N Newton, N m Newton meter, a.u. arbitrary units