Advances of 3T MR imaging in visualizing trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus are partially SNR-independent: Analysis using simulated noise in relation to micro-CT, 1.5T MRI, and biomechanical strength

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 132-140

  Bauer, Jan S ^a,b,c   Monetti, Roberto ^c   Krug, Roland ^b   Matsuura, Maiko ^d   Mueller, Dirk ^a,c   Eckstein, Felix ^e   Rummeny, Ernst J ^a   Lochmueller, Eva Maria ^d   Raeth, Christoph W ^c   Link, Thomas M ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR EXTRATERRESTRISCHE PHYSIK   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^e PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

Author keywords

3T; MRimaging; Osteoporosis; Signal to noise ratio (SNR); Susceptibility; Trabecular bone structure analysis

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE BIOPSY; BONE STRENGTH; BONE STRUCTURE; CALCANEUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; MICRO-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; MORPHOMETRICS; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; TRABECULAR BONE;

AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMECHANICS; CALCANEUS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; ELASTIC MODULUS; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; OSTEOPOROSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 60349100912     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21625     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Link TM, Bauer J, Kollstedt A, et al. Trabecular bone structure of the distal radius, the calcaneus, and the spine: which site predicts fracture status of the spine best? Invest Radiol 2004;39:487-497.
2. Ito M, Ikeda K, Nishiguchi M, et al. Multi-detector row CT imaging of vertebral microstructure for evaluation of fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 2005;20:1828-1836.
3. Stauber M, Rapillard L, van Lenthe GH, Zysset P, Muller R. Importance of individual rods and plates in the assessment of bone quality and their contribution to bone stiffness. J Bone Miner Res 2006;21:586-595.
4. Matsuura M, Eckstein F, Lochmuller EM, Zysset PK. The role of fabric in the quasi-static compressive mechanical properties of human trabecular bone from various anatomical locations. Bio-mech Model Mechanobiol 2008;7:27-42.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Bauer JS, Kohlmann S, Eckstein F, Mueller D, Lochmuller EM, Link TM. Structural analysis of trabecular bone of the proximal femur using multislice computed tomography: a comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry for predicting biomechanical strength in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 2006;78:78-89.
8. Phan CM, Matsuura M, Bauer JS, et al. Trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus: comparison of MR imaging at 3.0 and 1.5 T with micro-CT as the standard of reference. Radiology 2006;239:488-496.
9. Rath C, Schuecker P. Analysing large-scale structure. II. Testing for primordial non-Gaussianity in CMB maps using surrogates. Mon Not R Astronom Soc 2003;344:115-128.
10. Chiang LY, Naselsky PD, Coles P. The robustness of phase mapping as a non-Gaussianity test. Astrophys J 2004;602:L1-L4.
11. Gudbjartsson H, Patz S. The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:910-914.
12. Majumdar S, Newitt D, Jergas M, et al. Evaluation of technical factors affecting the quantification of trabecular bone structure using magnetic resonance imaging. Bone 1995;17:417-430.
13. Mueller D, Link TM, Monetti R, et al. The 3D-based scaling index algorithm: a new structure measure to analyze trabecular bone architecture in high-resolution MR images in vivo. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1483-1493.
14. Nicholson PH, Lowet G, Cheng XG, Boonen S, van der Perre G, Dequeker J. Assessment of the strength of the proximal femur in vitro: relationship with ultrasonic measurements of the calcaneus. Bone 1997;20:219-224.
15. Nagele E, Kuhn V, Vogt H, et al. Technical considerations for mi-crostructural analysis of human trabecular bone from specimens excised from various skeletal sites. Calcif Tissue Int 2004;75:15-22.
16. Hildebrand T, Ruegsegger P. A new method for the model-independent assessment of thickness in three-dimensional images. J Mi-crosc 1997;185:67-75.
17. Monetti RA, Bauer JS, Mueller D, et al. Application of the scaling index method to μCT images of human trabecular bone for the characterization of biomechanical strength. Medical Imaging 2007: Image Processing. Pluim JPW, Reinhardt JM, eds. Proc SPIE 2007;6512:65124H.
18. Michaely HJ, Kramer H, Dietrich O, et al. Intraindividual comparison of high-spatial-resolution abdominal MR angiography at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: initial experience. Radiology2007;244:907-913.
19. Okada T, Miki Y, Fushimi Y, et al. Diffusion-tensor fiber tractogra-phy: intraindividual comparison of 3.0-T and 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 2006;238:668-678.
20. Bauer JS, Krause SJ, Ross CJ, et al. Volumetric cartilage measurements of porcine knee at 1.5-T and 3.0-TMR imaging: evaluation of precision and accuracy. Radiology 2006;241:399-406.
21. Heesakkers RA, Futterer JJ, Hovels AM, et al. Prostate cancer evaluated with ferumoxtran-10-enhanced T2*-weighted MR Imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: early experience. Radiology 2006;239:481-487.
22. Firbank MJ, Coulthard A, Harrison RM, Williams ED. A comparison of two methods for measuring the signal to noise ratio on MR images. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:N261-N264.
23. Wiesinger F, Boesiger P, Pruessmann KP. Electrodynamics and ultimate SNR in parallel MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:376-390.
24. Sijbers J, Poot D, den Dekker AJ, Pintjens W. Automatic estimation of the noise variance from the histogram of a magnetic resonance image. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:1335-1348.
25. Sijbers J, den Dekker AJ, Van Audekerke J, Verhoye M, Van Dyck D. Estimation of the noise in magnitude MR images. Magn Reson Imaging 1998;16:87-90.
26. Price RR, Axel L, Morgan T, et al. Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. Med Phys 1990;17:287-295.
27. Link TM, Majumdar S, Augat P, et al. Proximal femur: assessment for osteoporosis with T2* decay characteristics at MR imaging. Radiology1998;209:531-536.
28. Majumdar S, Genant HK, Grampp S, et al. Correlation of trabecular bone structure with age, bone mineral density, and osteoporotic status: in vivo studies in the distal radius using high resolution magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:111-118.
29. Wehrli FW, Hwang SN, Ma J, Song HK, Ford JC, Haddad JG. Cancellous bone volume and structure in the forearm: Noninvasive assessment with MR microimaging and image processing. Radiology 1998;206:347-357.
30. Ludescher B, Martirosian P, Lenk S, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone in the wrist at 3 Tesla:initial results. Acta Radiol 2005;46:306-309.
31. Banerjee S, Choudhury S, Han ET, et al. Autocalibrating parallel imaging of in vivo trabecular bone microarchitecture at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:1075-1084.
32. Krug R, Banerjee S, Han ET, Newitt DC, Link TM, Majumdar S. Feasibility of in vivo structural analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance images of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:1307-1314.
33. Kreitner KF, Romaneehsen B, Krummenauer F, Oberholzer K, Mul-ler LP, Duber C. Fast magnetic resonance imaging of the knee using a parallel acquisition technique (mSENSE): a prospective performance evaluation. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1659-1666.
34. Bauer JS, Banerjee S, Henning TD, Krug R, Majumdar S, Link TM. Fast high-spatial-resolution MRI of the ankle with parallel imaging using GRAPPA at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:240-245.
35. Magee T, Shapiro M, Williams D. Usefulness of simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics technique for MRI of the knee. AJR
36. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1411-1415.
37. Romaneehsen B, Oberholzer K, Muller LP, Kreitner KF. Rapid musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging using integrated parallel acquisition techniques (IPAT)-initial experiences. Rofo 2003;175:1193-1197.
38. Kothari M, Keaveny TM, Lin JC, Newitt DC, Genant HK, Majumdar S. Impact of spatial resolution on the prediction of trabecular architecture parameters. Bone 1998;22:437-443.
39. Sell CA, Masi JN, Burghardt A, Newitt D, Link TM, Majumdar S. Quantification of trabecular bone structure using magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla-calibration studies using microcom-puted tomography as a standard of reference. Calcif Tissue Int 2005;76:355-364.
40. Issever AS, Vieth V, Lotter A, et al. Local differences in the trabecular bone structure of the proximal femur depicted with high-spatial-resolution MR imaging and multisection CT. Acad Radiol 2002;9:1395-1406.
41. Laib A, Beuf O, Issever A, Newitt DC, Majumdar S. Direct measures of trabecular bone architecture from MR images. Adv Exp Med Biol 2001;496:37-46.
42. Rosenthal H, Thulborn KR, Rosenthal DI, Rosen BR. Magnetic susceptibility effects of trabecular bone on magnetic resonance bone marrow imaging. Invest Radiol 1990;25:173-178.
43. Sugimoto H, Kimura T, Ohsawa T. Susceptibility effects of bone trabeculae. Quantification in vivo using an asymmetric spin-echo technique. Invest Radiol 1993;28:208-213.
44. Majumdar S, Thomasson D, Shimakawa A, Genant H. Quantitation of the susceptibility difference between trabecular bone and bone marrow: experimental studies. Magn Res Med 1991;22:111-127.