Evaluation of Trabecular Bone Orientation in Wrists of Young Volunteers Using Mr Relaxometry and High Resolution Mri

  • Torkel B. Brismar
  • Lubos Budinsky
  • Sharmila Majumdar
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 496)


Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most commonly used method to evaluate skeletal status in clinical practice. The method has a great limitation, however, as it cannot distinguish between trabecular and cortical bone. As osteoporosis is a surface process, the trabecular bone is more vulnerable to a negative bone balance than the cortical bone, due to the greater surface area of trabecular bone. Because only about 10% to 15% of the bone mineral is trabecular bone, small changes in the trabecular bone are concealed by the cortical bone when evaluated by DXA. By using quantitative computed tomography (QCT) the amount of trabecular bone can be evaluated1but no information of the structure is obtained. To enable evaluation of the trabecular bone structure, two principally different techniques using magnetic resonance (MR) have been developed. One method is direct imaging of the trabecular bone, using high resolution2-4and the other is based on indirect measurements.5-9Using these indirect measurements, the magnetic field inhomogeneity occurring at the interface between trabecular bone and bone marrow is quantified and used as a measurable characteristic of trabecular bone density and structure. Several studies have shown that both methods can evaluate trabecular bone structure in vitro.10-13To prove that the methods also are able to evaluate trabecular bone structure in vivo is, however, a difficult task, as there are no non-invasive methods to evaluate trabecular bone structure at resolutions comparable to those obtained in vitro.


Trabecular Bone Quantitative Compute Tomography Trabecular Thickness Trabecular Structure Bone Volume Fraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steiger P, Block JE, Steiger S et al. (1990) Spinal bone mineral density measured with quantitative CT: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. Radiology 175, 537–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ma J, Wehrli FW, Song HK. (1996) Fast 3D large-angle spin-echo imaging (3D FLASE). MRM 35, 903–910Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ouyang X.Selby K, Lang P, Engelke K, Klifa C, Fan B, Zucconi F, Hottya G, Chen M, Majumdar S, Genant HK. (1997) High resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the calcaneus: age-related changes in trabecular structure and comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry measurements. Calcif Tis Int 60, 139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordon CL, Webber CE, Christoforou N, Nahmias C. (1997) In vivo assessment of trabecular bone structure at the distal radius from high-resolution magnetic resonance images. Med Phys 24, 585–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sebag GH, Moore SG. (1990). Effect of trabecular bone on the appearance of marrow in gradient-echo imaging of the appendicular skeleton. Radiology 174, 855–859PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wehrli FW, Ford JC, Attie M, Kressel HY, Kaplan FS. (1991) Trabecular structure: preliminary application of MR interferometry. Radiology 179, 615–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sugimoto H, Kimura R, Ohsawa T. (1993) Susceptibility effects of bone trabeculae. Quantification in vivo using an asymmetric spin-echo technique. Investigative Radiology 28, 208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schick F, Seitz D, Machann H, Lutz O, Claussen CD (1995). Magnetic resonance bone densitometry. Comparison of different methods based on susceptibility. Invest Rad 30, 254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma J, Wehrli FW (1996) Method for image-based measurement of the reversible and irreversible contribution to the transverse-relaxation rate. J Magn Res Ser B 111, 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung H, Wehrli FW, Williams JL, Kugelmass SD (1993) Relationship between NMR transverse relaxation, trabecular bone architecture, and strength. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 90, 10250–10254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selby K, Majumdar S, Newitt DC, Genant HK (1996) Investigation of MR decay rates in microphantom models of trabecular bone. JMRI 6, 549–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yablonskiy DA, Reims WR, Stark H, Haacke EM (1997) Quantitation of T2’ anisotropic effects on magnetic resonance bone mineral density measurement. MRM 37, 214–221Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brismar T.B, Karlsson M, Li T-Q, Ringertz H. (1999) Orientation of trabecular bone in human vertebrae assessed by MRI measurements. European Radiology 4, 643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wehrli FW, Ford JC, Haddad JG. (1995) Oseteoporosis: clinical assessment with quantitative MR imaging in diagnosis. Radiology 196, 631–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brismar T.B. (2000) MR relaxometry of lumbar spine, hip, and calcaneus in healthy premenopausal women: relationship with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound. European Radiology 10, 1215–1221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torkel B. Brismar
    • 2
  • Lubos Budinsky
  • Sharmila Majumdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Magnetic Resonance Science Center at UCSFSan Francisco
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKarolinska Hospital Karolinska InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations