4.5 Article

Volumetric quantitative CT of the spine and hip derived from contrast-enhanced MDCT:: Conversion factors

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 188, 期 5, 页码 1294-1301

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.1006

关键词

bone mineral density; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; femur; fractures; geriatrics; MDCT; osteoporosis; quantitative CT; spine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this study were to perform volumetric quantitative CT (QCT) of the spine and hip using nondedicated contrast-enhanced standard MDCT data sets and to derive a conversion factor for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment based on dedicated volumetric QCT data sets. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Forty postmenopausal women with a mean +/- SD age of 71 +/- 9 years underwent routine contrast-enhanced abdominal and pelvic MDCT. Before this imaging examination, standard volumetric QCT of the spine (L1 - L3, n = 40) and hip ( n = 21) was performed. Relations between QCT and contrast-enhanced MDCT findings were assessed with linear regression analysis. RESULTS. Mean lumbar BMD was 84.1 +/- 35.8 mg/mL, and mean femoral BMD was 0.62 +/- 0.12 g/cm(2), as determined with QCT. Contrast-enhancement values with MDCT were on average 30.3% higher than those of QCT in the spine and 2.3% higher in the proximal femur ( p < 0.05). Based on linear regression, a correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 was calculated for lumbar BMD with the equation BMDQCT = 0.96 x BMDMDCT - 20.9 mg/mL. A coefficient of r = 0.99 was calculated for the proximal femur with the equation BMDQCT = 0.99 x BMDMDCT - 12 mg/cm(2) ( p < 0.01). In 17 of 40 patients, 33 vertebral fractures were found. The dedicated QCT and enhanced MDCT data sets did not show a significant difference ( p > 0.05) between patients with fractures and those without fractures. CONCLUSION. With the conversion factors, reliable volumetric BMD measurements can be calculated for the hip and the spine from routine abdominal and pelvic MDCT data sets.

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