» Articles » PMID: 15207767

Reproducibility and Error Sources of Micro-MRI-based Trabecular Bone Structural Parameters of the Distal Radius and Tibia

Overview
Journal Bone
Date 2004 Jun 23
PMID 15207767
Citations 40
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The mechanical competence of trabecular bone is significantly determined, next to material density, by its three-dimensional (3D) structure. Recent advances in micromagnetic resonance imaging (micro-MRI) acquisition and processing techniques allow the 3D trabecular structure to be analyzed in vivo at peripheral sites such as the distal radius and tibia. The practicality of micro-MRI-based noninvasive virtual bone biopsy (VBB) for longitudinal studies of patients hinges on the reproducibility of the derived structural parameters, which largely determine the size of the effect that can be detected at a given power and significance level. In this paper, the reproducibility of micro-MRI-derived trabecular bone structure measures was examined by performing repeat studies in six healthy subjects in whom the distal aspects of the radius and tibia were scanned with a 3D spin-echo sequence at 137 x 137 x 410 microm3 voxel size. Bone volume fraction (BV/TV) and digital topological analysis (DTA) structural parameters including the topological bone surface-to-curve ratio (SCR) and topological erosion index (TEI) were evaluated after subjecting the raw images to a cascade of processing steps. The average coefficient of variation was 4-7% and was comparable for the two anatomic sites and for all parameters measured. The reliability expressed in terms of the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.95 to 0.97 in the radius and 0.68 to 0.92 in the tibia. Error analysis based on simulations suggests involuntary patient motion, primarily rotation, to be the chief source of imprecision, followed by failure to accurately match the analysis volumes in repeat studies.

Citing Articles

Bone Structure Analysis of the Radius Using Ultrahigh Field (7T) MRI: Relevance of Technical Parameters and Comparison with 3T MRI and Radiography.

Jarraya M, Heiss R, Duryea J, Nagel A, Lynch J, Guermazi A Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(1).

PMID: 33445536 PMC: 7826934. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11010110.


Bone and non-contractile soft tissue changes following open kinetic chain resistance training and testosterone treatment in spinal cord injury: an exploratory study.

Holman M, Chang G, Ghatas M, Saha P, Zhang X, Khan M Osteoporos Int. 2021; 32(7):1321-1332.

PMID: 33443609 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05778-2.


MR imaging pattern of tibial subchondral bone structure: considerations of meniscal coverage and integrity.

Ariyachaipanich A, Kaya E, Statum S, Biswas R, Tran B, Bae W Skeletal Radiol. 2020; 49(12):2019-2027.

PMID: 32591855 PMC: 7658005. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-020-03517-6.


Assessing bone mineralisation in children with chronic kidney disease: what clinical and research tools are available?.

Lalayiannis A, Crabtree N, Fewtrell M, Biassoni L, Milford D, Ferro C Pediatr Nephrol. 2019; 35(6):937-957.

PMID: 31240395 PMC: 7184042. DOI: 10.1007/s00467-019-04271-1.


MRI assessment of bone structure and microarchitecture.

Chang G, Boone S, Martel D, Rajapakse C, Hallyburton R, Valko M J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 46(2):323-337.

PMID: 28165650 PMC: 5690546. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25647.