Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11146376
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2001-1-26
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Noninvasive and/or nondestructive techniques are capable of providing more macro- or microstructural information about bone than standard bone densitometry. Although the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, numerous studies indicate that bone strength is only partially explained by bone mineral density. Quantitative assessment of macro- and microstructural features may improve our ability to estimate bone strength. The methods available for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and volumetric quantitative computed tomography (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone noninvasively and/or nondestructively include high-resolution computed tomography (hrCT), micro-computed tomography (muCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR), and micromagnetic resonance (muMR). vQCT, hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; muCT and muMR are principally applicable in vitro. Although considerable progress has been made in the noninvasive and/or nondestructive imaging of the macro- and microstructure of bone, considerable challenges and dilemmas remain. From a technical perspective, the balance between spatial resolution versus sampling size, or between signal-to-noise versus radiation dose or acquisition time, needs further consideration, as do the trade-offs between the complexity and expense of equipment and the availability and accessibility of the methods. The relative merits of in vitro imaging and its ultrahigh resolution but invasiveness versus those of in vivo imaging and its modest resolution but noninvasiveness also deserve careful attention. From a clinical perspective, the challenges for bone imaging include balancing the relative advantages of simple bone densitometry against the more complex architectural features of bone or, similarly, the deeper research requirements against the broader clinical needs. The considerable potential biological differences between the peripheral appendicular skeleton and the central axial skeleton have to be addressed further. Finally, the relative merits of these sophisticated imaging techniques have to be weighed with respect to their applications as diagnostic procedures requiring high accuracy or reliability on one hand and their monitoring applications requiring high precision or reproducibility on the other.
|
| pubmed:keyword | |
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:issn |
0301-0163
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:copyrightInfo |
Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.
|
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
54 Suppl 1
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
24-30
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2005-11-16
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
2000
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Advanced imaging of the macrostructure and microstructure of bone.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Osteoporosis and Arthritis Research Group, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif., 94143-0628, USA.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Review
|