BONE IMAGING THE CLOSEST THING TO ART IN MEDICINE
Abstract
Advances in bone imaging have had a tremendous impact on our knowledge of skeletal anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology while at the same time generating images of both aesthetic and scientific interest. Bone imaging for assessing bone quality very much lends itself to multidisciplinary input and collaboration across scientific disciplines, helping to drive technological and analytical advances in the assessment of bone quality. This has allowed a much deeper awareness of the changes that occur in bone quality with increasing age and disease, as well as improved fracture risk prediction and better treatment monitoring. Currently, many high-resolution imaging modalities exist to evaluate bone quality, though all have their particular merits and limitations. The ideal imaging modality, which has yet to fully emerge, would allow an accurate prediction of bone strength, discriminate at-risk individuals, identify which aspects of bone strength are faltering, and precisely monitor the effect of treatment. When this day comes, the occurrence of unheralded debilitating osteoporotic fractures in themiddle-aged and elderly will be seen as an unusual, rather than a usual, event. In the meantime, we can look forward to evenmore aesthetically pleasing images of bone structure, images that help linkform to function in the human body and as such administer a helpful dose of science to the art of medicine.
References
1. Link TM. The Founder’s Lecture 2009: advances in imaging of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39:943-955.
2. Marinkovic' S, Stosic'-Opinc'al T, Strbac M, Tomic' I, Tomic' O, Djordjevic' D. Neuroradiology and art: a review and personal contribution. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2010;222:297-302.
3. Fung KH. The rainbow technique: an innovative approach to the artistic presentation of 3D computed tomography. Leonardo. 2006;39:101-103.
4. Fung KH. Creating special visual effects with Moire patterns in stereoscopic 3D and 4D computed tomographic art. Leonardo. 2010;43:306-307.
5. Kemp M. From science in art to the art of science. Nature. 2005;434:308-309.
6. Griffith JF, Genant HK. New imaging modalities in bone. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2011;13:241-250.
7. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285: 785-795.
8. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H,McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:385-397.
9. Prevrhal S, Shepherd J, Faulkner K, Gaither K, Black D, Lang T. Comparison of DXA hip structural analysis with volumetric QCT. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11: 232-236.
10. Faulkner KG, Wacker WK, Barden HS, et al. Femur strength index predicts hip fracture independent of bone density and hip axis length. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:593-599.
11. Le Bras A, Kolta S, Soubrane P, Skalli W, Roux C, Mitton D. Assessment of femoral neck strength by 3-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:425-430.
12. Kolta S, Le Bras A, Mitton D, et al. Three-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry (3DXA): a method for reconstruction of human bones using a dual X-ray absorptiometry device. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:969-976.
13. Ahmad O, Ramamurthi K, Wilson KE, Engelke K, Prince RL, Taylor RH. Volumetric DXA (VXA): a new method to extract 3D information from multiple in vivo DXA images. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:2744-2751.
14. Graeff C, Timm W, Nickelsen TN, et al; EUROFORS High Resolution Computed Tomography Substudy Group. Monitoring teriparatideassociated changes in vertebral microstructure by high-resolution CT in vivo: results from the EUROFORS study. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:1426-1433.
15. Kang Y, Engelke K, Fuchs C, Kalender WA. An anatomic coordinate system of the femoral neck for highly reproducible BMD measurements using 3D QCT. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2005;29:533-541.
16. Engelke K, Mastmeyer A, Bousson V, Fuerst T, Laredo JD, Kalender WA. Reanalysis precision of 3D quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the spine. Bone. 2009;44:566-572.
17. Engelke K, Fuerst T, Dasic G, Davies RY, Genant HK. Regional distribution of spine and hip QCT BMD responses after one year of once-monthly ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone. 2010;46:1626-1632.
18. Keaveny TM. Biomechanical computed tomography-noninvasive bone strength analysis using clinical computed tomography scans. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1192:57-65.
19. Christiansen BA, Kopperdahl DL, Kiel DP, Keaveny TM, Bouxsein ML. Mechanical contributions of the cortical and trabecular compartments contribute to differences in age-related changes in vertebral body strength in men and women assessed by QCT-based finite element analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26: 974-983.
20. Melton LJ 3rd, Riggs BL, Keaveny TM, et al. Relation of vertebral deformities to bone density, structure, and strength. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:1922-1930.
21. Keaveny TM, Kopperdahl DL, Melton LJ 3rd, et al. Age-dependence of femoral strength in white women and men. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:994-1001.
22. Griffith JF, Genant HK. Bone mass and architecture determination: state of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;22:737-764.
23. Rizzoli R, Chapurlat RD, Laroche JM, et al. Effects of strontium ranelate and alendronate on bone microstructure in women with osteoporosis: results of a 2-year study. Osteoporos Int. 2011 Sept 10. Epub ahead of print.
24. Vilayphiou N, Boutroy S, Szulc P, et al. Finite element analysis performed on radius and tibia HR-pQCT images and fragility fractures at all sites in men. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:965-973.
25. Vilayphiou N, Boutroy S, Sornay-Rendu E, et al. Finite element analysis performed on radius and tibia HR-pQCT images and fragility fractures at all sites in postmenopausal women. Bone. 2010;46:1030-1037.
26. Krug R, Carballido-Gamio J, Burghardt AJ, et al. Assessment of trabecular bone structure comparing magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography ex vivo and in vivo. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:653-661.
27. Link TM, Vieth V, Langenberg R, et al. Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int. 2003;72:156-165.
28. Krug R, Banerjee S, Han E, Newitt D, Link T, Majumdar S. Feasibility of in vivo structural analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance images of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:1307-1314.
29. Chesnut CH 3rd, Majumdar S, Newitt DC, et al. Effects of salmon calcitonin on trabecular microarchitecture as determined by magnetic resonance imaging: results from the QUEST study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:1548-1561.
30. Chesnut CH 3rd, Silverman S, Andriano K, et al. A randomized trial of nasal spray salmon calcitonin in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis: the prevent recurrence of osteoporotic fractures study. Am J Med. 2000; 109:267-276.
31. Folkesson J, Goldenstein J, Carballido-Gamio J, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of the effects of alendronate on MRI bone microarchitecture in postmenopausal osteopenic women. Bone. 2011;48:611-621.
32. Lam SC, Wald MJ, Rajapakse CS, Liu Y, Saha PK, Wehrli FW. Performance of the MRI-based virtual bone biopsy in the distal radius: Serial reproducibility and reliability of structural and mechanical parameters in women representative of osteoporosis study populations. Bone. 2011;49:895-903.
33. Krug R, Burghardt AJ,Majumdar S, Link TM. High-resolution imaging techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48:601-621.
34. Techawiboonwong A, Song HK, Leonard MB, Wehrli FW. Cortical bone water: in vivo quantification with ultrashort echo-time MR imaging. Radiology. 2008; 248:824-833.
35. Griffith JF, Yeung DK, Antonio GE, et al. Vertebral bone mineral density, marrow perfusion, and fat content in healthy men and men with osteoporosis: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and MR spectroscopy. Radiology. 2005;236: 945-951.
36. Griffith JF, Yeung DK, Antonio GE, et al. Vertebral marrow fat content and diffusion and perfusion indexes in women with varying bone density: MR evaluation. Radiology. 2006;241:831-838.
37. Griffith JF, Wang YX, Zhou H, et al. Reduced bone perfusion in osteoporosis: likely causes in an ovariectomy rat model. Radiology. 2010;254:739-746.
38. Griffith JF, Kumta SM, Huang Y. Hard arteries, weak bones. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:517-521.
39. Biffar A, Schmidt GP, Sourbron S, et al. Quantitative analysis of vertebral bone marrow perfusion using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: initial results in osteoporotic patients with acute vertebral fracture. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33: 676-683.
40. Kanchiku T, Taguchi T, Toyoda K, Fujii K, Kawai S. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Spine. 2003;28: 2522-2526.
Review
For citations:
Griffith J.F., Genant H.K., Link T.M. BONE IMAGING THE CLOSEST THING TO ART IN MEDICINE. Osteoporosis and Bone Diseases. 2013;16(1):39-45. (In Russ.)
Views:
619
Email this article 
