Literature DB >> 34249626

Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging: association of bone texture parameters with finite element analysis (FEA)-based failure load of single vertebrae and functional spinal units.

Nico Sollmann1,2,3, Nithin Manohar Rayudu4, John Jie Sheng Lim4, Michael Dieckmeyer1, Egon Burian1, Maximilian T Löffler1, Jan S Kirschke1,2, Thomas Baum1, Karupppasamy Subburaj4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease that is characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration, predisposing affected individuals to fragility fractures. Yet, standard measurement of areal bone mineral density (BMD) in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the current reference standard has limitations for correctly detecting osteoporosis and fracture risk, with opportunistic osteoporosis screening using computed tomography (CT) showing increasing importance. This study's objective is to compare finite element analysis (FEA)-based vertebral failure load with parameters of texture analysis (TA) derived from multi-detector CT (MDCT).
METHODS: MDCT data of seven subjects (mean age: 71.9±7.4 years) were included for FEA and TA. Manual segmentation was performed for the vertebral bodies T11, T12, L1, and L2 and the intervertebral discs (IVDs) T11/12, T12/L1, L1/2, and L2/3. Correlation analyses between FEA-derived failure loads and parameters of TA for the single vertebrae and two functional spinal units (FSUs) were calculated, defining FSU-1 as T11-IVD-T12-IVD-L1 and FSU-2 as T12-IVD-L1-IVD-L2. Furthermore, multivariate regressions were performed to identify the texture parameters that predicted the failure load best.
RESULTS: For single vertebrae, the strongest correlations were observed for skewnessglobal, kurtosisglobal, and gray level variance (rho =-0.7668 to -0.7362; P<0.001), while for FSUs, SumAverage, long-run emphasis, long-run low gray-level emphasis, homogeneity, and energy showed the strongest correlations (rho =-0.8187 to 0.8407; P<0.05) to failure loads. SumAverage best predicted the failure load for single vertebrae (R2 adj =0.523, P<0.001). For the two FSUs, kurtosisglobal (FSU-1: R2 adj =0.611, P=0.001) and skewnessglobal (FSU-2: R2 adj =0.579, P=0.002) were the best predictors.
CONCLUSIONS: TA using MDCT data of the spine was significantly associated with FEA-derived failure loads of both, single vertebrae and FSUs. Texture parameters predicted failure loads of FSUs as a more realistic in-vivo scenario equally well as compared to single vertebrae analyses. TA may reflect a less complex and time-consuming approach to accurately and non-invasively evaluate vertebral bone strength. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Failure load; finite element analysis (FEA); functional spinal unit (FSU); texture analysis (TA); vertebral fracture

Year:  2021        PMID: 34249626      PMCID: PMC8250011          DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-1156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  44 in total

1.  Vertebral body insufficiency fractures: detection of vertebrae at risk on standard CT images using texture analysis and machine learning.

Authors:  Urs J Muehlematter; Manoj Mannil; Anton S Becker; Kerstin N Vokinger; Tim Finkenstaedt; Georg Osterhoff; Michael A Fischer; Roman Guggenberger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Normative values for CT-based texture analysis of vertebral bodies in dual X-ray absorptiometry-confirmed, normally mineralized subjects.

Authors:  Manoj Mannil; Matthias Eberhard; Anton S Becker; Denise Schönenberg; Georg Osterhoff; Diana P Frey; Ender Konukoglu; Hatem Alkadhi; Roman Guggenberger
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-08-06       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study.

Authors:  J R Center; T V Nguyen; D Schneider; P N Sambrook; J A Eisman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-03-13       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  X-ray-based quantitative osteoporosis imaging at the spine.

Authors:  M T Löffler; N Sollmann; K Mei; A Valentinitsch; P B Noël; J S Kirschke; T Baum
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-02-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Bone strength and its determinants.

Authors:  P Ammann; R Rizzoli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Finite element analysis for prediction of bone strength.

Authors:  Philippe K Zysset; Enrico Dall'ara; Peter Varga; Dieter H Pahr
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2013-08-07

8.  Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection.

Authors:  C Cooper; G Campion; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  CT Texture Analysis: Definitions, Applications, Biologic Correlates, and Challenges.

Authors:  Meghan G Lubner; Andrew D Smith; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Dushyant V Sahani; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2017 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women.

Authors:  Dana Bliuc; Nguyen D Nguyen; Vivienne E Milch; Tuan V Nguyen; John A Eisman; Jacqueline R Center
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  1 in total

1.  Texture Analysis Using CT and Chemical Shift Encoding-Based Water-Fat MRI Can Improve Differentiation Between Patients With and Without Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.

Authors:  Nico Sollmann; Edoardo A Becherucci; Christof Boehm; Malek El Husseini; Stefan Ruschke; Egon Burian; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas M Link; Karupppasamy Subburaj; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Roland Krug; Thomas Baum; Michael Dieckmeyer
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 5.555

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.