| Literature DB >> 32869567 |
Ida L Gitajn1, Gerard P Slobogean2, Eric R Henderson1, Arvind G von Keudell3, Mitchel B Harris4, John A Scolaro5, Nathan N O'Hara2, Jonathan T Elliott6, Brian W Pogue7, Shudong Jiang7.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Extremity injury represents the leading cause of trauma hospitalizations among adults under the age of 65 years, and long-term impairments are often substantial. Restoring function depends, in large part, on bone and soft tissue healing. Thus, decisions around treatment strategy are based on assessment of the healing potential of injured bone and/or soft tissue. However, at the present, this assessment is based on subjective clinical clues and/or cadaveric studies without any objective measure. Optical imaging is an ideal method to solve several of these issues. AIM: The aim is to highlight the current challenges in assessing bone and tissue perfusion/viability and the potentially high impact applications for optical imaging in orthopaedic surgery. APPROACH: The prospective will review the current challenges faced by the orthopaedic surgeon and briefly discuss optical imaging tools that have been published. With this in mind, it will suggest key research areas that could be evolved to help make surgical assessments more objective and quantitative.Entities:
Keywords: bone perfusion; fluorescence imaging; indocyanine green; optical imaging; orthopaedic surgery
Year: 2020 PMID: 32869567 PMCID: PMC7457961 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.25.8.080601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Opt ISSN: 1083-3668 Impact factor: 3.170
Listing of optical imaging tools utilized in soft and hard tissue trauma and disease studies, categorized by the type of contrast, depth regime, and a brief strengths and weaknesses list.
| Contrast mechanism | Probe technology | Depth regime | Strengths/weaknesses | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endogenous signals | UV fluorescence | No exogenous contrast needed; | ||
| assessment of bone necrosis; | ||||
| superficial tissues only. | ||||
| Scatter, dichroic, polarization, OCT | No exogenous contrast needed; | |||
| high spatial resolution; | ||||
| matrix structures and flow; | ||||
| superficial tissues only. | ||||
| NIRS (absorption and scattering) | Several mm to cm | No exogenous contrast needed; | ||
| functional information of hemodynamics and tissue oxygenation; | ||||
| need to scan probe over region. | ||||
| NIR imaging (reflection) | Several mm | No exogenous contrast needed; | ||
| 3-D-model-based surface-shape tracking. | ||||
| Raman, NIR-hyperspectral and infrared (IR) | High molecular specificity; | |||
| very low signal levels; | ||||
| specificity/sensitivity tradeoff. | ||||
| Terahertz (THz) | Superficial sensing; | |||
| largely water content based. | ||||
| Contrast agents | Antibiotics | Sensing of osteonecrosis or bone growth; well-tolerated; | ||
| multiday use for contrast. | ||||
| Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching | Intercellular solute flow sensing; used with standard contrast agents; | |||
| superficial imaging assessment. | ||||
| ICG | Several mm to cm | Vascular/tissue perfusion; | ||
| often used qualitatively but can be provide a binary diagnostic; | ||||
| can provide flow kinetics. | ||||
| Molecular contrast and nanoparticles | Matrix and biology targeting; | |||
| limited to largely preclinical to date, although evolving rapidly. | ||||
| Hybrid imaging modalities | Optical/ICG | Several mm to cm | Commercially available and growing in usage; | |
| primarily used for soft tissue due to higher perfusion. | ||||
| Photoacoustic/optoacoustic | Several mm to cm | Primarily studied in soft tissues; | ||
| some potential for cancellous bone; | ||||
| high degree of image artifacts. | ||||
| X-ray/Raman | Several mm to cm | High potential for chemical specificity and contrast agents; | ||
| very low signal levels. |
Fig. 1The matching process of the capabilities of each optical tool with the needs in each application.