4.6 Article

Experimental Bone Biopsies Using Two Bone Biopsy Needles: Quantitative Micro-CT Analysis of Bone Specimens

Journal

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 332-340

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.09.006

Keywords

Micro-computed tomography; bone histomorphometry; microstructure; trabecular thickness; bone biopsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate whether samples obtained using two kinds of small trephines, 2.4 and 1.8 mm in inner diameter, are sufficient for the quantitative evaluation of metabolic bone disease using micro-computed tomographic (CT) three-dimensional parameter data sets. Materials and Methods. A total of 19 porcine lumbar vertebrae prior to biopsy and biopsy samples from the use of 2.4- and 1.8-mm trephines were examined using micro-CT imaging. For quantitative analysis, seven three-dimensional structural parameters, including trabecular bone volume, trabecular number, trabecular thickness, trabecular separation, the structure model index, the degree of anisotropy, and the trabecular bone pattern factor, were measured using CtAn software. The difference and agreement between the biopsy samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens before biopsy were assessed using paired t tests and Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. Results. There were no significant differences between the 2.4-mm samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens for trabecular bone volume, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number, with mean differences of -0.9%, 2.3%, and -3.1%, respectively; there was no significant difference between the 1.8-mm samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens only for trabecular thickness, with a mean difference of 1.9%. Conclusion. Samples taken from the use of the 2.4-mm trephine were better for quantitative analysis than those from the use of the 1.8-mm trephine and were acceptable for the quantitative evaluation of trabecular bone volume, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available