Ultrasound velocity of trabecular cubes reflects mainly bone density and elasticity.

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_385A8196D964
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Ultrasound velocity of trabecular cubes reflects mainly bone density and elasticity.
Périodique
Calcified Tissue International
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Hans D., Wu C., Njeh C.F., Zhao S., Augat P., Newitt D., Link T., Lu Y., Majumdar S., Genant H.K.
ISSN
0171-967X
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
1999
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
64
Numéro
1
Pages
18-23
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Résumé
Studies have indicated that quantitative ultrasound (QUS) variables may be influenced by the mechanical properties of bone which in turn are determined by bone's material and structural properties. However, from these studies it is unclear what role density, elasticity, and structure play in determining velocity. Eighteen defatted, 12-mm cubic trabecular bone specimens were cut from cadaveric specimens. Amplitude-dependent speed of sound (SOS) using a single point QUS system was assessed in three orthogonal axes. Magnetic resonance images were obtained, from which measures of apparent trabeuclar structure were derived. The specimens were nondestructively tested in compression along three orthogonal axes defined by the sides of the cubes. The elastic modulus (in the three directions) and the strength (in one direction) were determined. Trabecular BMD was measured by quantitative computed tomography. SOS varied significantly with direction of measurement, with the highest value in the axial direction (axial:1715 m/s, sagittal: 1662 m/second, and coronal: 1676 m/s). SOS of each of the three axes was generally associated with the various mechanical (r = 0.30-0.87), density (r = 0.81-0.93), and bone structural variables (0.3-0.8). However, after adjusting the SOS correlations by density, only the correlation with elasticity remained significant in the coronal direction. BMD alone explained 88-93% of variance in SOS whereas in the multivariate model, BMD plus elasticity and/or anisotropic variables explained 96-98% of the variance in SOS. Variability of SOS is explained mostly by density and to a small extent by elasticity or anisotropy. Since only 2-6% of the variance of the QUS measurement is not explained by density and elasticity, one could conclude that the remaining variance reflects other properties of bone or perhaps simply measurement error. Evidence that these other properties may be structure related is only found in the anisotropy of QUS parameter.
Mots-clé
Adult, Aged, Bone Density, Bone and Bones, Elasticity, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
02/03/2009 12:33
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 13:27
Données d'usage