Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 106–112 | Cite as

Fractal signature analysis of macroradiographs measures trabecular organization in lumbar vertebrae of postmenopausal women

  • J. C. Buckland-Wright
  • J. A. Lynch
  • J. Rymer
  • I. Fogelman
Clinical Investigations
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

High definition macroradiography was used to provide an image of the detailed structural organization of the cancellous bone in human lumbar vertebrae. The fractal signature analysis (FSA) method was used to quantify the horizontal and vertical trabecular organization recorded within the image. Comparison of the FSA of the posteroanterior and lateral macroradiographs in postmortem lumbar vertebrae showed that neither the superimposition of the neural arch nor the radiographic angle affected the trabecular measurement within the vertebral body. FSA analysis of the trabecular structure measured from the macroradiographs of lumbar vertebrae in two groups of postmenopausal women, with high and low bone mineral density (BMD), showed that the large vertical trabecular structures correlated with the women's body weight (P<0.01–0.03) and body mass index (P<0.005–0.05), the fine horizontal structures correlated with the women's age (P<0.005–0.05), and fine vertical trabecular structures were significantly greater (P<0.005–0.05) in the low compared with the high BMD group.

Key words

Postmenopausal women Lumbar vertebrae Trabecular organization Macroradiography Fractal signature analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Riggs BL, Melton LJ (1992) The prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 327:620–627Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogelman I, Rodin A, Blake G (1990) Impact of bone mineral measurements on osteoporosis. Eur J Nucl Med 16:39–52Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Genant HK, Faulkner KG, Gluer C-C (1991) Measurement of bone mineral density: current status. Am J Med 91 (suppl 5B): 49S-53SGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallach S, Feinblatt JD, Avioli LV (1992) The bone quality problem. Calcif Tissue Int 51:169–172Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevalier F, Laval-Jeantet AM, Laval-Jeantet M, Bergot C (1992) CT image analysis of the vertebral trabecular network in vivo. Calcif Tissue Int 51:8–13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caligiuri P, Giger M, Favus MJ, Jia H, Doi K, Dixon LB (1993) Computerised radiographic analysis of osteoporosis: preliminary evaluation. Radiol 186:471–474Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckland-Wright JC (1989) A new high definition microfocal X-ray unit. Br J Radiol 62:201–208Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckland-Wright JC, Bradshaw CR (1989) Clinical applications of high-definition microfocal radiography. Br J Radiol 62:209–217Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lynch JA, Hawkes DJ, Buckland-Wright JC (1991) Analysis of texture in macroradiographs of osteoarthritic knees using the fractal signature. Phys Med Biol 36:709–722Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lynch JA, Hawkes DJ, Buckland-Wright JC (1991) A robust and accurate method for calculating the fractal signature of texture in macroradiographs of osteoarthritic knees. Med Inform 16:241–251Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pentland AP (1984) Fractal based descriptions of natural scenes. IEEE Trans Pattern Ann Machine Intell PAMI-6:661–674Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feder J (1988) Fractals. New York, Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Majumdar S, Weistein RS, Prased RR, Genant HK (1993) The fractal dimension of trabecular bone: a measure of trabecular structure. Calcif Tissue Int 52:168Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundahl T, Ohley WS, Kay SM, Siffert R (1986) Fractional Brownian-motion: a maximum likelihood estimator and its application to imaging texture. IEEE Trans Med Imaging MI-5: 152–161Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruttiman UE, Webber RL, Hazelrig JB (1992) Fractal dimension from radiographs of periodontal alveolar bone. A possible diagnostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Pathol 74:98–110Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergot C, Laval-Jeantet AM, Preteux F, Meunier A (1988) Measurement of anisotropic vertebral trabecular bone loss during aging by quantitative image analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 43:143–149Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campbell MJ, Machin D (1990) Medical statistics: a commonsense approach. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lentner C (1984) Geigy scientific tables vol. 3, 8th ed. Ciba Geigy Ltd, Basle, p 327Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parfitt AM (1987) Trabecular bone architecture in the pathogenesis and prevention of fracture. Am J Med 82 (suppl 1B):68–72Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin RB (1991) Determinants of the mechanical properties of bone. J Biomech 24:79–88Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibson LJ (1985) The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone. J Biochem 18:317–328Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atkinson PJ (1967) Variation of trabecular structure of vertebrae with age. Calcif Tissue Res 1:24–32Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mosekilde L (1988) Age related changes in vertebral trabecular bone architecture—assessed by a new method. Bone 9:247–250Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Remagen W (1989) Osteoporosis. Sandoz Ltd, Basle, p 33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Buckland-Wright
    • 1
  • J. A. Lynch
    • 1
  • J. Rymer
    • 2
  • I. Fogelman
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Anatomy and Cell BiologyUnited Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's HospitalsLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUnited Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's HospitalsLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineUnited Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's HospitalsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations