3.8 Article

Assessment of bone mineral density by DXA and the trabecular microarchitecture of the calcaneum by texture analysis in pre- and postmenopausal women in the evaluation of osteoporosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 161-168

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.37481

Keywords

Bone mineral density; osteoporosis; texture analysis; trabecular architecture

Funding

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The in vivo evaluation of trabecular bone structure could be useful in the diagnosis of osteoporosis for the characterization of therapeutic response and understanding the role of parameters other than bone mineral density (BMD) in defining skeletal status. This study was made to evaluate changes taking place in the trabecular architecture of bone with age and menopausal status in women. The findings are compared with the femoral neck bone as well as the trochantar bone mineral density determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which is a standard reference test for evaluation of osteoporosis. Seventy females were recruited for the study, 25 pre-menopausal (mean age SD: 39.4 3.8) and 45 postmenopausal (mean age SD: 57.9 7.9) women. The right femoral neck bone mineral density was measured for them by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). For the same individuals, lateral view radiographs of the right calcaneum were taken as well. The radiographs were digitized and the region of interest (ROI) of 256 x 256 pixels was selected, the run-length matrix was computed for calculating seven parameters [Table 1] and the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform of the image was calculated. Using the FFT, the power spectral density (PSD) was derived and the root mean square (RMS) value was determined. Our results confirm that age has a significant influence on the texture of the trabecular bone and bone mineral density.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available