Quantification de l'architecture osseuse par microtomographie 3D utilisant le rayonnement synchrotron

Nous présentons un système de microtomographie 3D par rayonnement synchrotron développé à l'ESRF de Grenoble, en vue de l'analyse de la structure trabéculaire osseuse. Ce système permet d'acquérir de façon non destructive des images 3D d'échantillons osseux , ayant des voxels isotrope de 6.65 μm. Afin de caractériser la structure 3D de l'os, des paramètres quantitatifs sont extraits de ces images. Les paramètres morphologiques et topologiques utilisés en histomorphométrie, sont calculés sur les différentes coupes du volume. La variabilité des paramètres dans l'échantillon et la nécessité d'une analyse réellement tridimensionnelle sont soulignés. L'influence de la résolution spatiale sur l'exactitude des paramètres calculés est également examinée

被服に対する意識及び行動とそれに影響する要因

博士（学術）神戸大

Micro‐CT examinations of trabecular bone samples at different resolutions: 14, 7 and 2 micron level

International audienceTomographic techniques are attractive for the investigation of trabecular bone architecture. Using either conventional X‐ray sources or synchrotron sources currently allows the acquisition of 3D images in a wide range of spatial resolution that may be as small as a few micrometers. Since it is technically possible to examine trabecular architecture at different scales, a question is to know what type of information it is possible to get at each scale. For this purpose, a series of ten vertebrae samples from healthy females of different ages (33 to 90) was imaged at various resolutions on three different micro‐CT systems (cubic voxel size respectively 14, 6.7 and 1.4 \mum). The comparison of morphometric parameters extracted from the different images is in agreement with simulation results on the influence of spatial resolution on structure parameters. The conclusion is that a 14 \mum voxel size gives a reasonably good parameterisation of trabecular architecture. Besides the synchrotron radiation 2 \mum level images reveal interesting features on the irregularities and rupture of trabecular surface, and on remodeling zones

European semi-anthropomorphic spine phantom for the calibration of bone densitometers: assessment of precision, stability and accuracy. The European Quantitation of Osteoporosis Study Group.

Up to now it has not been possible to reliably cross-calibrate dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) densitometry equipment made by different manufacturers so that a measurement made on an individual subject can be expressed in the units used with a different type of machine. Manufacturers have adopted various procedures for edge detection and calibration, producing various normal ranges which are specific to each individual manufacturer's brand of machine. In this study we have used the recently described European Spine Phantom (ESP, prototype version), which contains three semi-anthropomorphic "vertebrae" of different densities made of stimulated cortical and trabecular bone, to calibrate a range of DXA densitometers and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) equipment used in the measurement of trabecular bone density of the lumbar vertebrae. Three brands of QCT equipment and three brands of DXA equipment were assessed. Repeat measurements were made to assess machine stability. With the large majority of machines which proved stable, mean values were obtained for the measured low, medium and high density vertebrae respectively. In the case of the QCT equipment these means were for the trabecular bone density, and in the case of the DXA equipment for vertebral body bone density in the posteroanterior projection. All DXA machines overestimated the projected area of the vertebral bodies by incorporating variable amounts of transverse process. In general, the QCT equipment gave measured values which were close to the specified values for trabecular density, but there were substantial differences from the specified values in the results provided by the three DXA brands. For the QCT and Norland DXA machines (posteroanterior view), the relationships between specified densities and observed densities were found to be linear, whereas for the other DXA equipment (posteroanterior view), slightly curvilinear, exponential fits were found to be necessary to fit the plots of observed versus specified densities. From these plots, individual calibration equations were derived for each machine studied. For optimal cross-calibration, it was found to be necessary to use an individual calibration equation for each machine. This study has shown that it is possible to cross-calibrate DXA as well as QCT equipment for the measurement of axial bone density. This will be of considerable benefit for large-scale epidemiological studies as well as for multi-site clinical studies depending on bone densitometry

Bone density reduction in various measurement sites in men and women with osteoporotic fractures of spine and hip: the European quantitation of osteoporosis study.

We have measured bone mineral density (BMD) using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the spine and hip, spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCTspi), and peripheral radial quantitative computed tomography (pQCTrad) in 334 spine and 51 hip fracture patients. The standardized hip and spine BMD for each patient was calculated and compared with the combined reference ranges published previously, each densitometer having been cross-calibrated with the prototype European Spine Phantom (ESPp) or the European Forearm Phantom (EFP). Male and female fracture cases had similar BMD values after adjusting for body size, where appropriate. This suggests that the relationship between bone density (mass per unit volume) and fracture risk is similar between men and women. However, compared with age-matched controls, mean decreases in BMD ranged from 0.78 SD units (women with hip fracture, DXAspi) to 2.57 SD units (men with spine fractures, QCTspi). The proportion of spine and hip fracture patients falling below the cutoff for osteoporosis (T-score <-2.5 SD) proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) study group varied according to different BMD measurement procedures (range 18-94%). This finding suggests that the WHO definition requires different thresholds when used with non-DXA BMD measurement techniques. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare measurement techniques for their ability to discriminate between cases and controls. Among DXA sites, the proximal femur was preferred when evaluating generalized bone loss, particularly in elderly people. An additional spinal BMD measurement may add clinical value if spine fracture risk assessment has a high priority. Both axial and peripheral QCT techniques performed comparably to DXA in spinal osteoporosis, so investigators and clinicians may use any of the three technologies with similar degrees of confidence for the diagnosis of generalized or site-specific bone loss providing straightforward clinical guidelines are followed