Prediction of Amplitude and Frequency Dependence of the Backscatter Coefficient in Cancellous Bone with An Autocorrelation Model
QUS measurements represent an established means of bone status assessment in osteoporosis1. Currently available technologies are based on measurements in transmission of the slope of the frequency-dependent attenuation (BUA in dB/MHz) and the speed of sound (SOS in m/s) at peripheral skeletal sites (calcaneus, finger phalanges). The QUS approach in osteoporosis has been clinically validated: the predictive value of QUS for fracture risk at the femoral neck and spine has been documented in several prospective studies2,3. However, the potential of QUS for bone characterization is still not fully exploited. Transmission measurements only partially exploit the information related to the interaction between the elastic wave and bone micro architecture. Several studies concluded that ultrasonic measurements on human cancellous bones reflected primarily bone mineral density (BMD) and that there was only limited room for micro-structural factors to play a role in current QUS measurements4,5.
KeywordsAttenuation Osteoporosis Autocorrelation Compressibility Calcis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.D. Hans, P. Dargent-Moline, A. M. Schott, J. L. Sebert, C. Cormier, P. O. Kotski, P. D. Delmas, J. M. Pouilles, G. Breart and P. J. Meunier, Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the Epidos prospective studyLancet 348(9026)511–514 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.V. Robergeot, P. Laugier, P. Drain, P. Giat and G. Berger, Measurement of integrated backscatter coefficient of trabecular bone1996 IEEE Ultrasonics Symp. Proc1123–1125 (1996).Google Scholar
- 8.P. Laugier, P. Giat, C. Chappard, C. Roux and G. Berger, Clinical assesment of the backscatter coefficient in osteoporosis1997 IEEE Ultrasonics Symp. Proc1101–1104 (1997).Google Scholar
- 11.M. F. Insanna and D. G. Brown, in: Ultrasonic scattering in biological tissuesedited, by R. R. Shung and G. A. Thieme, (CRC Press, London2000), p. 75–124.Google Scholar