Fixed and Relative Positioning of Scans for High Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography.

Autor:	Bugbird AR; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada., Klassen RE; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada., Bruce OL; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada; Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada., Burt LA; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada., Edwards WB; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada; Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada., Boyd SK; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada. Electronic address: skboyd@ucalgary.ca.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry [J Clin Densitom] 2024 Jan-Mar; Vol. 27 (1), pp. 101462. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Dec 09.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jocd.2023.101462
Abstrakt:	Introduction: High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) imaging protocol requires defining where to position the ∼1 cm thick scan along the bone length. Discrepancies between the use of two positioning methods, the relative and fixed offset, may be problematic in the comparison between studies and participants. This study investigated how bone landmarks scale linearly with length and how this scaling affects both positioning methods aimed at providing a consistent anatomical location for scan acquisition. Methods: Using CT images of the radius (N = 25) and tibia (N = 42), 10 anatomical landmarks were selected along the bone length. The location of these landmarks was converted to a percent length along the bone, and the variation in their location was evaluated across the dataset. The absolute location of the HR-pQCT scan position using both offset methods was identified for all bones and converted to a percent length position relative to the HR-pQCT reference line for comparison. A secondary analysis of the location of the scan region specifically within the metaphysis was explored at the tibia. Results: The location of landmarks deviated from a linear relationship across the dataset, with a range of 3.6 % at the radius sites, and 4.5 % at the tibia sites. The consequent variation of the position of the scan at the radius was 0.6 % and 0.3 %, and at the tibia 2.4 % and 0.5 %, for the fixed and relative offset, respectively. The position of the metaphyseal junction with the epiphysis relative to the scan position was poorly correlated to bone length, with R 2  = 0.06 and 0.37, for the fixed and relative offset respectively. Conclusion: The variation of the scan position by either method is negated by the intrinsic variation of the bone anatomy with respect both to total bone length as well as the metaphyseal region. Therefore, there is no clear benefit of either offset method. However, the lack of difference due to the inherent variation in the underlying anatomy implies that it is reasonable to compare studies even if they are using different positioning methods. Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Annabel, Rachel, Olivia, Lauren, W. Brent, and Steven declare they have no conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2023 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu