Advertisement

Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT)–based finite element analysis provides enhanced diagnostic performance in identifying non-vertebral fracture patients compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

  • H. Jiang
  • D.L. Robinson
  • C.J. Yates
  • P.V.S. Lee
  • J.D. WarkEmail author
Original Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Summary

Due to limitations of the predominant clinical method for diagnosing osteoporosis, an engineering model based on a dedicated CT scanner for bone density and structure was applied in fracture patients and controls. Improved diagnostic performance was observed, which supports its potential use in future research and clinical practice.

Introduction

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the predominant clinical method for diagnosing osteoporosis, has limitations in identifying individuals with increased fracture risk. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) provides additional information and can be used to generate finite element (FE) models from which bone strength properties can be estimated. We investigated the ability of pQCT-FE properties to distinguish peripheral low-trauma fracture patients from healthy controls, by comparison with DXA and standard pQCT.

Methods

One hundred and eight fracture patients (77 females aged 67.7 ± 7.9 years, 31 males aged 69.7 ± 8.9 years) were recruited from a hospital fracture liaison service. One hundred and twenty healthy community controls (85 females aged 69.8 ± 8.5 years, 35 males aged 68.9 ± 7.2 years) were recruited.

Results

Significant differences between groups were observed in pQCT-FE properties, especially at the 4% tibia site. Fracture odds increased most per standard deviation decrease in pQCT-FE at this location [shear stiffness estimate, kshear, in females, OR = 10.34, 95% CI (1.91, 43.98); bending stiffness estimate, kbend, in males, OR = 8.32, 95% CI (4.15, 33.84)]. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was observed to be highest with pQCT-FE properties at 4% the tibia site. In females, this was 0.83 for the pQCT-FE variable kshear, compared with 0.72 for DXA total hip bone density (TH aBMD) and 0.76 for pQCT tibia trabecular density (Trb vBMD); in males, this was 0.81 for the pQCT-FE variable kbend at the 4% tibia site, compared with 0.62 for TH aBMD and 0.71 for Trb vBMD. There were significant differences in AUROC between DXA and pQCT-FE variables in both females (p = 0.02) and males (p = 0.03), while no difference was observed in AUROC between primary pQCT and pQCT-FE variables.

Conclusions

pQCT-FE modeling can provide enhanced diagnostic performance compared with DXA and, given its moderate cost, may be useful in clinical settings.

Keywords

AUROC bone strength fracture status finite element modeling pQCT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all subjects for their participation in this study and the University of the Third Age for providing assistance in participant recruitment. We acknowledge Dr Ashwini Kale for performing DXA and pQCT scans, Mr Richard Farrugia for coordinating the fracture liaison service from which all fracture patients were recruited and Associate Professor Andrew Bucknill for his strong support of recruitment at the fracture liaison service.

Funding information

HJ is funded with a joint PhD scholarship by China Scholarship Council (funding reference: CSC201608240003) and the University of Melbourne.

Compliance with ethical standards

Verbal and written informed consents were obtained from each participant after they were provided with detailed information about the study. This study was approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (ethics approval number MH 2014.143).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

198_2019_5213_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Delzell ES, Randall S, Dawson-Hughes B (2014) The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 29(11):2520–2526PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8(1-2):136PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cauley JA (2017) Osteoporosis: fracture epidemiology update 2016. Curr Opin Rheumatol 29(2):150–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang H, Yates CJ, Gorelik A, Kale A, Song Q, Wark JD (2018) Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) measures contribute to the understanding of bone fragility in older patients with low-trauma fracture. J Clin Densitom 21(1):140–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fonseca H, Moreira-Goncalves D, Vaz M, Fernandes MH, Ferreira R, Amado F, Mota MP, Duarte JA (2012) Changes in proximal femur bone properties following ovariectomy and their association with resistance of fracture. J Bone Miner Res 30(3):282–292Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haentjens P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Bouillon R, Cooper C, Lamraski G, Vanderschueren D, Kaufman JM, Boonen S, Network on Male Osteoporosis in Europe (NEMO) (2004) Evidence from data searches and life-table analyses for gender-related differences in absolute risk of hip fracture after Colles’ or spine fracture: Colles’ fracture as an early and sensitive marker of skeletal fragility in white men. J Bone Miner Res 19(12):1933–1944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muller ME, Webber CE, Bouxsein ML (2003) Predicting the failure load of the distal radius. Osteoporos Int 14(4):345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kontulainen SA, Johnston JD, Liu D, Leung C, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2008) Strength indices from pQCT imaging predict up to 85% of variance in bone failure properties at tibial epiphysis and diaphysis. J Musculoskelet Nueronal Interact 8(4):401–409Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weatherholt AM, Avin KG, Hurd AL, Cox JL, Marberry ST, Santoni BG, Warden SJ (2015) Peripheral quantitative computed tomography predicts humeral diaphysis torsional mechanical properties with good short-term precision. J Clin Densitom 18(4):551–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crockett C, Arnold CM, Farthing JP, Chilibeck PD, Johnston JD, Bath B, Baxter-Jones ADG, Kontulainen SA (2015) Bone strength and muscle properties in postmenopausal women with and without a recent distal radius fracture. Osteoporos Int 26(10):2461–2469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Munoz F, Delmas PD (2007) Alterations of cortical and trabecular architecture are associated with fractures in postmenopausal women, partially independent of decreased BMD measured by DXA: the OFELY study. J Bone Miner Res 22(3):425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheu Y, Zmuda JM, Boudreau RM, Petit MA, Ensrud KE, Bauer DC, Gordon CL, Orwoll ES Cauley JA; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men MrOS Research Group (2011) Bone strength measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the risk of nonvertebral fractures: the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. J Bone Miner Res 26(1):63–71Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dall’Ara E, Schmidt R, Pahr D, Varga P, Chevalier Y, Patsch J, Kainberger F, Zysset P (2010) A nonlinear finite element model validation study based on a novel experimental technique for inducing anterior wedge-shape fractures in human vertebral bodies in vitro. J Biomech 43(12):2374–2380PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishiyama KK, Gilchrist S, Guy P, Cripton P, Boyd SK (2013) Proximal femur bone strength estimated by a computationally fast finite element analysis in a sideways fall configuration. J Biomech 46(7):1231–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cody DD, Gross GJ, Hou FJ, Spencer HJ, Goldstein SA, Fyhrie DP (1999) Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J Biomech 32(10):1013–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A, Ruegsegger P (1999) Load transfer of the distal radius from in-vivo high-resolution CT-imaging. J Biomech 32(8):821–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray HA, Taddei F, Zavatsky AB, Cristofolini L, Gill HS (2008) Experimental validation of a finite element model of a human cadaveric tibia. J Biomech Eng 130(3):031016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edwards WB, Troy KL (2012) Finite element prediction of surface strain and fracture strength at the distal radius. Med Eng Phys 34(3):290–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yates CJ, Chauchard MA, Liew D, Bucknill A, Wark JD (2015) Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom 18(2):150–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson DL, Jiang H, Song Q, Yates C, Lee PVS, Wark JD (2019) The application of finite element modelling based on clinical pQCT for classification of fracture status. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 18(1):245–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM (2003) Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 36(7):894–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt SmartPLS GmbH. www.smartpls.com. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
  23. 23.
    Delong ER, Delong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or correlated receiver operating characteristics curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3):837–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke B (2008) Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3(Suppl 3):S131–S139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boutroy S, van Rietbergen B, Sornay-Rendu E, Munoz F, Bouxsein M, Delmas PD (2008) Finite element analysis based on in vivo HR-pQCT images of the distal radius is associated with wrist fracture in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 23(3):392–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Duboeuf F, Chapurlat RD (2017) Bone microarchitecture assessed by HR-pQCT as predictor of fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the OFELY Study. J Bone Miner Res 32(6):1243–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawalilak CE, Kontulainen SA, Amini MA, Lanovaz JL, Olszynski WP, Johnston JD (2016) In vivo precision of three HR-pQCT-derived finite element models of the distal radius and tibia in postmenopausal women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stagi S, Cavalli L, Cavalli T, de Martino M, Brandi ML (2016) Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) for the assessment of bone strength in most of bone affecting conditions in developmental age: a review. Ital J Pediatr 42:88PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boyd SK (2008) Site-specific variation of bone micro-architecture in the distal radius and tibia. J Clin Densitom 11(3):424–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reina P, Cointry GR, Nocciolino L, Feldman S, Ferretti JL, Rittweger J, Capozza RF (2015) Analysis of the independent power of age-related, anthropometric and mechanical factors as determinants of the structure of radius and tibia in normal adults. A pQCT study. J Musculoskelet Nueronal Interact 15(1):10–22Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Caenegem E, Taes Y, Wierckx K, Vandewalle S, Toye K, Kaufman J-M, Schreiner T, Haraldsen I, T’Sjoen G (2013) Low bone mass is prevalent in male-to-female transsexual person before the start of cross-sex hormonal therapy and gonadectomy. Bone 54(1):92–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saarnio E, Pekkinen M, Itkonen ST, Kemi V, Karp H, Ivaska KK, Risteli J, Koivula M-K, Karkkainen M, Makitie O, Sievanen H, Lamberg-Allardt C (2018) Low free 25-hydroxyvitamin D and high vitamin D binding protein and parathyroid hormone in obese Caucasians. A complex association with bone? PLoS One 13(2)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marques IDB, Araujo MJCLN, Graciolli FG, dos Reis LM, Pereira RM, Custodio MR, Jorgetti V, Elias RM, David-Neto E, Moyses RMA (2017) Biopsy vs. peripheral computed tomography to assess bone disease in CKD patients on dialysis: differences and similarities. Osteoporos Int 28(5):1675–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schafer AL, Burghardt AJ, Sellmeyer DE, Palermo L, Shoback DM, Majumdar S, Black DM (2013) Postmenopausal women treated with combination parathyroid hormone (1-84) and ibandronate different microstructural changes at the radius vs. tibia: the PTH and Ibandronate Combination Study (PICS). Osteoporos Int 24(10):2591–2601PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zanchetta MB, Costa F, Longobardi V, Longarini G, Mazure RM, Moreno ML, Vazquez H, Silveira F, Niveloni S, Smecuol E, de la Paz TM, Hwang HJ, Gonzalez A, Maurino EC, Bogado C, Zanchetta JR, Bai JC (2015) Significant bone microarchitecture impairment in premenopausal women with active celiac disease. Bone 76:149–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Famula A, Nowotny-Czupryna O, Czupryna K, Nowotny J (2013) Previous physical activity and body balance in elderly people. Biol Sport 30(4):311–315PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang PF, Sanno M, Ganse B, Koy T, Bruggemann GP, Muller LP, Rittweger J (2014) Torsion and antero-posterior bending in the in vivo human tibia loading regimes during walking and running. PLoS One 9(4):e94525PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vilayphiou N, Boutroy S, Szulc P, van Rietbergen B, Munoz F, Delmas PD, Chapurlat R (2011) Finite element analysis performed on radius and tibia HR-pQCT images and fragility fractures at all site in men. J Bone Miner Res 26(5):965–973PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nishiyama KK, Macdonald HM, Hanley DA, Boyd SK (2013) Women with previous fragility fractures can be classified based on bone microarchitecture and finite element analysis measured with HR-pQCT. Osteoporos Int 24:1733–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bielesz B, Patsch JM, Fischer L, Bojic M, Winnicki W, Weber M, Cejka D (2017) Cortical porosity not superior to conventional densitometry in identifying hemodialysis patients with fragility fracture. PLoS One 12(2):e0171873PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Papaioannou A, Watts NB, Kendler DL, Yuen CK, Adachi JD, Ferko N (2002) Diagnosis and management of vertebral fractures in elderly adults. Am J Med 113(3):220–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C (2001) Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone 29(6):517–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY, Cauley JA, Ensrud K, Browner WS, Nevitt MC (2003) Cummings SR; Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 18(11):1947–1954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Amiri L, Kheiltash A, Movassaghi S, Moghaddassi M, Seddigh L (2017) Comparison of bone density of distal radius with hip and spine using DXA. Acta Med Iran 55(2):92–96PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Jiang
    • 1
  • D.L. Robinson
    • 2
  • C.J. Yates
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • P.V.S. Lee
    • 2
  • J.D. Wark
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of MedicineRoyal Melbourne Hospital, University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Bone and Mineral MedicineRoyal Melbourne HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Diabetes and EndocrinologyRoyal Melbourne HospitalMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations