Effects of age and sex on the strength and cortical thickness of the femoral neck

A group of 48 men (22 aged 65-75 years, 26 aged 80-90 years) and 59 women (32 aged 65-75 years, 27 aged 80-90 years) were enrolled in the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik study and imaged with in vivo volumetric Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) to investigate the effects of age and sex on femoral neck structure and strength. Femoral neck cross-sectional moment of inertia for bending directions near those of standing and walking (I(AP)), bending strength (M(y)), and axial compressive strength (F(y)) were computed at the location of minimum cross-sectional area (minCSA). Local cortical thickness was computed in the inferior femoral neck based on density profiles extending through the cortex of the minCSA femoral neck section. Multivariate models accounting for height, weight, and age group (younger or older) showed that men had a 46% higher M(y) and a 23% higher F(y) than women, while women had a 13% thicker inferior cortex than men. Cortical thickness in the inferoposterior region of the femoral neck was significantly related to bending and axial strength after adjusting for overall volumetric bone mineral density. Both minCSA and I(AP) were higher in the older, gender-pooled age group, but F(y) and M(y) did not differ between the two age groups. The results suggest that age-related expansion of the femoral neck primarily occurs in the superior and inferior directions and helps maintain homeostasis of femoral neck stiffness and strength. The higher bending strength of the male femoral neck may partly explain why elderly men have a lower risk of hip fracture than elderly women.

Advanced CT bone imaging in osteoporosis

Non-invasive and/or non-destructive techniques can provide structural information about bone, beyond simple bone densitometry. While the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, many studies indicate that BMD only partly explains bone strength. Quantitative assessment of macro- and microstructural features may improve our ability to estimate bone strength. Methods for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) DXA and CT, particularly volumetric quantitative CT (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone non-invasively and/or non-destructively include high-resolution CT (hrCT), microCT (μCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR) and microMR (μMR). vQCT, hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; μCT and μMR are principally applicable in vitro. Despite recent progress made with these advanced imaging techniques, certain issues remain. The important balances between spatial resolution and sampling size, or between signal-to-noise and radiation dose or acquisition time, need further consideration, as do the complexity and expense of the methods vs their availability and accessibility. Clinically, the challenges for bone imaging include balancing the advantages of simple bone densitometry vs the more complex architectural features of bone or the deeper research requirements vs the broader clinical needs. The biological differences between the peripheral appendicular skeleton and the central axial skeleton must be further addressed. Finally, the relative merits of these sophisticated imaging techniques must be weighed with respect to their applications as diagnostic procedures, requiring high accuracy or reliability, compared with their monitoring applications, requiring high precision or reproducibility.

Absorptiometrie

This article is an introduction to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the most widely used method today for diagnosis of osteoporosis. DXA can be used to assess projective bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, the proximal hip, and the whole body as well as the skeletal periphery at the forearm, the hand, and the heel. The prominent area of application of DXA is the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis and its treatment. Because of its high accuracy, precision, and ability to predict osteoporotic fracture as well as its relatively low cost, DXA has prevailed over alternative methods. This article discusses the underlying X-ray physics and technological aspects, acquisition protocols, quality characteristics, and sources of error and their relevance. It also describes the various skeletal regions accessible to measurement, details on precision, nominal results, usability to predict fracture risk, and results of influential clinical trials.

Towards standardization of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the forearm: a common region of interest (ROI) improves the comparability among DXA devices

Manufacturer-implemented regions of interest (ROIs) to determine the bone mineral density (BMD) at the forearm are currently not standardized across dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices. We hypothesized that their differences introduce considerable variation in measurement results for forearm BMD when taken on different devices, and that a ROIs common to all devices with standardized placement and size significantly improve device comparability. The common ROI was defined to have a fixed length of 2 cm and to extend proximally from the location where the ulna and radius bones superimpose on the DXA image. The effects of universal standardization of forearm BMD were combined with and compared to those of the common ROI. They were drawn on 91 female study participants (ages 20-80 years, 10 per decade) who were scanned on Hologic QDR-4500, Aloka DCS-600EX, GE Lunar PIXI and Norland pDEXA DXA scanners. For all device combinations, manufacturer-implemented ROI root mean-square errors were significantly higher than for the common ROI, suggesting that implementing an ROI with common design on all scanners is a good way to reduce interdevice variability. When manufacturer-implemented ROIs were universally standardized root mean-square error (RMSE) values were less different from that of the nonstandardized Common ROI, suggesting that universal standardization can further improve interdevice comparability even when a common ROI such as the one implemented here is used. ROI standardization dramatically improves interdevice comparability.

Quantitative ultrasound of the tibia depends on both cortical density and thickness

This study investigated whether tibial speed of sound (SOS; SoundScan 2000, Myriad Ultrasound Systems, Israel) reflects not only bone mineral density (BMD) but also tibial cortical thickness, as assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and Quantitative CT (QCT) at a site-matched location. The secondary focus of the study was how tibial SOS compares with BMD at the spine and the hip, the most widely used locations for densitometry. Twenty-two young normal (N) and 23 postmenopausal women with spinal fractures (Fx) (mean (SD) age 35 (8) and 70 (5) years) underwent quantitative ultrasound (QUS) SOS measurement at the left tibial midshaft. From site-matched QCT scans (three 3-mm slices spaced along the QUS measurement region), BMD and cortical thickness were computed (QCT-cBMD, QCT-cTh). The cortex in the CT images was then subdivided into three concentric and equally spaced bands, and QCT-cBMD was computed separately for each band. DXA was performed at the mid-tibia (TIB BMD), at the spine (SPINE BMD) and the hip (total hip, HIP BMD). Correlation coefficients between parameters were determined with least-square linear fits. Intergroup differences were assessed by analysis of covariance, whose r2 value reflects the percentage variation in the data explained by group assignment. SOS correlated significantly with site-matched parameters (QCT-cBMD, OCT-cTh and TIB BMD, all r = 0.6, p < 0.001), SPINE BMD and HIP BMD (both r = 0.5, p < 0.001). Multiple regression with both QCT-cBMD and QCT-cTh against SOS yielded r = 0.7 with both parameters contributing significantly. For the cortex band subdivision, SOS correlated better with QCT-cBMD in the outermost band of the cortex (r = 0.67) than with the more central bands (r = 0.59 and r = 0.53). Group assignment could best explain SPINE BMD (r2 = 0.62) and HIP BMD (r2 = 0.51). SOS was comparable to TIB BMD (r2 = 0.3 vs. r2 = 0.35).: Our findings suggest that the tibial SOS measurement depends on both the thickness and density of the tibia, but is more strongly influenced by the density of the cortex near the surface than by its interior parts. The power of tibial ultrasound to discriminate between normal and fracture patients was less than that of spinal and femoral DXA BMD and comparable to site-matched DXA BMD.

Accuracy limits for the determination of cortical width and density: the influence of object size and CT imaging parameters

In this study we analysed the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) measurements in assessing cortical bone. We determined the dependency of thickness and density measurements on the true width and density of the cortex and on the spatial resolution in the CT images using two optimized segmentation methods. As a secondary goal, we assessed the ability of CT to reflect small changes in cortical thickness. Two different bone-mimicking phantoms with varying cortical thickness were scanned with single-slice CT on a Somatom Plus 4 scanner. Images were reconstructed with both a standard and a high-resolution convolution kernel. Two special operator-independent segmentation methods were used to automatically detect the edges of the cortical shell. We measured cortical thickness and density and compared the phantom measurements with theoretical computations by simulating a cross-sectional shape of the cortical shell. Based on the simulations, we calculated CT's power to detect small changes in cortical thickness. Simulations and phantom measurements were in very good agreement. Cortical thickness could be measured with an error of less than 10% if the true thickness was larger than 0.9 (0.7) mm for the standard (high-resolution) kernel which is close to the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the point spread functions for these kernels and our scanner. Density measurements yielded errors of less than 10% for true cortical thickness values above two to three times the FWHM corresponding to 2.5 (2) mm in our case. The simulations showed that a 10% change in cortical width would not be detected with satisfying probability in bones with a cortical shell thinner than 1.2 mm. An accurate determination of the cortical thickness is limited to bones with a thickness higher than the FWHM of the scanner's point spread function. Therefore, the use of a high-resolution reconstruction kernel is crucial. Cortical bone mineral density can only be measured accurately in bones two to three times thicker than this number. In thinner bones, the measured density becomes dependent on the thickness. Changes in cortical thickness can only be assessed if the change is rather large or if the measured bone has sufficient thickness. Therefore, assessing density or thickness of the vertebral shell by CT should be treated with caution.

[Quantitative computer tomography]

Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) can determine the true volumetric bone density of trabecular and cortical bone separately and at any skeletal site. QCT, because of its sensitivity to changes in bone status, is widely accepted as the superior method for the axial skeleton because of the high responsiveness of spinal trabecular bone to osteoporotic changes. The precision and accuracy of QCT at this site are somewhat lower than the respective values of other densitometric techniques. Nevertheless, because QCT measures a higher rate of bone loss at early premenopausal age, it allows better estimation of risk of vertebral fracture and smaller time intervals between follow-up measurements. The clinical acceptance of QCT is constrained by limited access to CT scanners for bone densitometry, the higher degree of operator dependence and the inability of QCT to measure the femur. New developments currently in scientific trial show that using volumetric CT can increase precision of QCT at the spine and allow highly accurate, precise and meaningful measurements at the femur.