| Literature DB >> 35880904 |
Thanh-Tu Pham1,2, Lawrence H Le1,2, Mahdieh Khodaei1, Rui Zheng3, Edmond Lou1,4.
Abstract
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional curvature of spine. Children with AIS and low bone quality have higher chance to get curve progression leading to bigger spinal curvature. In addition, bone quality affects acoustic impedance of bone, thus influencing the reflection coefficient of ultrasound signal from the soft tissue-bone interface. This study aimed to estimate the bone quality of AIS patients based on the reflection coefficients to determine the correlation of the bone quality with curve severity. A simple bone model was used to develop an equation to calculate the reflection coefficient value. Experiments were conducted on five different phantoms. Acrylic was used to design a vertebral shape to study the effect of surface roughness and inclination, including: smooth flat surface (SFS), smooth curved surface (SCS), rough curved surface (RCS), and the rough curved inclined surface (RCIS). A clinical study with 37 AIS patients were recruited. The estimated reflection coefficient values of plate phantoms agreed well with the predicted values and the maximum error was 6.7%. The reflection coefficients measured from the acrylic-water interface for the SFS, SCS, RCS, RCIS (3° and 5°) were 0.37, 0.33, 0.28, (0.23 and 0.12), respectively. The surface roughness and inclination increased the reflection loss. From the clinical data, the average reflection coefficients for children with AIS were 0.11 and 0.07 for the mild curve group and the moderate curve group, respectively. A moderate linear correlation was found between the reflection coefficients and curve severity (r2 = 0.3). Patients with lower bone quality have observed to have larger spinal curvature.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; bone quality; correlation; curve severity; ultrasound reflection coefficient
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35880904 PMCID: PMC9449449 DOI: 10.1177/09544119221114200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Inst Mech Eng H ISSN: 0954-4119 Impact factor: 1.763
Figure 1.(a) A simple bone model with a transducer on top of soft tissue which covers the cortical bone and (b) the primary and multiple reflections within the tissue mimicking layer used to estimate and .
Figure 2.(a) Experimental setup to measure the ultrasound properties of Blue Phantom and an acrylic plate and (b) experimental setup to measure the reflection from a rough curved surface. The surface is also tilted about 5° around the X axis (in YZ plane).
Properties of the materials used in the study.
| Material | Density (kg/m3) | Velocity (m/s) | Impedance (Mrayls) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water | 1000
| 1480
| 1.48 |
| Blue Phantom (BP) | 900 | 1485 | 1.34 |
| Soft tissue | 1050
| 1540
| 1.62 |
| Cortical bone | 1930[ | 3250[ | 6.27 |
| Acrylic | 1180
| 2720 | 3.21 |
| Aluminum | 2700[ | 6150 | 16.61 |
| Brass | 8415
| 4275 | 35.97 |
| Copper | 8900[ | 4515 | 40.18 |
| Steel | 8030
| 5700 | 45.77 |
| PZT | – | – | 33.00
|
| Matching layer
| – | – | 7.30
|
a
The value falls within the range given by the literature.[44,45]
Figure 3.(a) The ultrasound scan of children with AIS in standing position and (b) a B-mode image of a vertebra. A cadaver vertebra is shown in the inset.
Figure 4.(a) Envelopes of the recorded echo and two reverberations within the BP. The amplitude of the second reverberation is small and the zoomed signal is shown in the inset. (b) The linear regression line of the three data points. (c) The simulated amplitude ratio with change of soft-tissue thickness for three -values. (d) Comparison between the measured and predicted reflection coefficients. Error bars denote the standard deviations (see Table 2).
The calculated and measured reflection coefficients of the interfaces involved in this study. is given by the absolute value of the difference (calculated – measured) divided by the calculated value.
| Reflection coefficients | Calculated | Measured |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| BP/Acrylic ( | 0.41 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 6.68 |
| BP/Aluminum | 0.85 | 0.84 ± 0.06 | 1.60 |
| BP/Brass | 0.93 | 0.94 ± 0.07 | 1.73 |
| BP/Copper | 0.94 | 0.98 ± 0.11 | 4.41 |
| BP/Steel | 0.94 | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 2.14 |
Figure 5.The ultrasonographs (Left) and the corresponding RF data (Right) of the following target: (a) acrylic phantom with the SFS, (b) acrylic phantom with the RCIS, (c) lumbar vertebra phantom, and (d) lumbar vertebra of a subject.
Figure 6.The correlation between the and Cobb angle.