Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 |
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid | |
Excerpt
Noninvasive and/or nondestructive techniques, recently developed, are now capable of providing micro-structural information about bone beyond simple bone densitometry. While the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, numerous studies indicate that bone strength is only partially explained by BMD. Quantitative assessment of micro-structural features such as relative trabecular bone volume, trabecular spacing, and connectivity, to name a few, may improve our ability to estimate bone strength, predict fracture risk, and, perhaps, better understand pathogenetic mechanisms in osteoporosis. Indeed, a recent consensus conference defined osteoporosis as “a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture.”
The methods available for quantitatively assessing microstructure of trabecular bone noninvasively and/or nondestructively include high-resolution computed tomography (hrCT), micro-computed tomography (μCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR), and micro-magnetic resonance μMR. While hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo, the more technically demanding techniques of μCT and μMR are principally applicable in vitro. Both the in vivo and in vitro imaging methods have generally been compared with the traditional invasive quantitative histomorphometric techniques as a means of validating and understanding the newer imaging approaches.
In this issue of Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging, I have gathered, as contributors, the leaders in the field of noninvasive imaging, applied to bone microstructural evaluation, and I have also included leaders in the area of traditional quantitative histomorphometry as a reference point for the innovative imaging methods.
Accordingly, the first article, “Bone Microstructure in Osteoporosis: Transilial Biopsy and Histomorphometry” by M. Janet Barger-Lux and Robert Recker represents several decades of histological-based work from Creighton University and provides an understanding of traditional invasive imaging against which to judge the strength and weaknesses of the innovative noninvasive or nondestructive imaging works to follow. The second chapter, “The Zurich Experience: One Decade of Three-Dimensional High-Resolution Computed Tomography” by Ralph Mueller presents an array of important contributions in micro-CT emanating from the Institute for Biomedical Engineering in Zurich and contrasts nicely with the MR imaging experience presented in the subsequent articles in the issue.
“Magnetic Reasonance Imaging of Bone Structure” by Sharmila Majumdar provides an overview of the many developments in MR imaging of bone that have evolved over the past decade, in general, and at the University of California San Francisco, in particular. The fourth article, “Role of Magnetic Resonance for Assessing Structure and Function of Trabecular Bone” by Felix Wehrli and colleagues discusses in detail the developments and accomplishments generated by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, and places them in the perspective of other centers working in the field. The fifth article, “Characterization of the Integrity of Three-Dimensional Trabecular Bone Microstructure by Connectivity and Shape Analysis Using High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Vivo” by Bernd Stampa, Claus Glueer and colleagues reviews the micro-MR imaging work accomplished at the University of Kiel in recent years, focusing particularly on in vivo imaging of the phalanger.
