4.5 Article

Comparison of micro-CT post-processing methods for evaluating the trabecular bone volume fraction in a rat ACL-transection model

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 49, 期 14, 页码 3559-3563

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.08.024

关键词

Knee; Osteoarthritis; Bone; Micro-computed tomography; Ligament

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, United States [R01-AR054099, RO1-AR056834, P20-GM104937]
  2. Lucy Lippitt Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trabecular bone volume fraction assessments are likely sensitive to the analysis method and selection of the region of interest. Currently, there are several methods for selecting the region of interest to analyze trabecular bone in animal models of post-traumatic osteoarthritis. The objective of this study was to compare three published methods for determining the trabecular bone volume fraction of the medial tibial epiphyses in ACL transected and contralateral ACL intact knees. Micro-computed tomography images of both knees were obtained five weeks post-operatively and evaluated using three methods: (1) the Whole Compartment Method that captured the entire medial compartment, (2) the centrally located Single Core Method, and (3) the Triplet Core Method that averaged focal locations in the anterior, central, and posterior regions. The Whole Compartment Method detected significant bone loss in the ACL transected knee compared to the ACL intact knee (p < 0.001), with a loss of 15.2 +/- 3.9%. The Single Core and the Triplet Core Methods detected losses of 7.5 +/- 10.5% (p=0.061) and 14.1 +/- 13.7%(p = 0.01), respectively. Details regarding segmentation methods are important for facilitating comparisons between studies, and for selecting methods to document trabecular bone changes and treatment outcomes. Based on these findings, the Whole Compartment Method is recommended, as it was least variable and more sensitive for detecting differences in the bone volume fraction in the medial compartment. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据