Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Update on Imaging-Based Measurement of Bone Mineral Density and Quality

  • Imaging (D Mintz, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Patients with inflammatory arthropathies have a high rate of fragility fractures. Diagnostic assessment and monitoring of bone density and quality are therefore critically important. Here, we review standard and advanced techniques to measure bone density and quality, specifically focusing on patients with inflammatory arthropathies.

Recent Findings

Current standard procedures are dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT). DXA-based newer methods include trabecular bone score (TBS) and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA). More advanced imaging methods to measure bone quality include high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) as well as multi-detector CT (MD-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Quantitative ultrasound has shown promise but is not standard to assess bone fragility.

Summary

While there are limitations, DXA remains the standard technique to measure density in patients with rheumatological disorders. Newer modalities to measure bone quality may allow better characterization of bone fragility but currently are not standard of care procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. • Xue AL, Wu SY, Jiang L, Feng AM, Guo HF, Zhao P. Bone fracture risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(36):e6983 This meta-analysis shows well that both male and female patients with rheumatoid arthritis have a significantly higher fracture risk, in particular vertebral and hip fractures.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Dubrovsky AM, Lim MJ, Lane NE. Osteoporosis in rheumatic diseases: anti-rheumatic drugs and the skeleton. Calcif Tissue Int. 2018;102(5):607–18 This review article documents that medications approved for the treatment of osteoporosis, including denosumab, cathepsin K, bisphosphonates, anti-sclerostin antibodies and parathyroid hormone (hPTH 1–34), have efficacy in both the prevention of systemic bone loss and reducing localized bone erosions.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Confavreux CB, Chapurlat RD. Systemic bone effects of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(4):1023–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paggiosi MA, Peel NF, Eastell R. The impact of glucocorticoid therapy on trabecular bone score in older women. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(6):1773–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martel D, Leporq B, Saxena A, Belmont HM, Turyan G, Honig S, et al. 3T chemical shift-encoded MRI: detection of altered proximal femur marrow adipose tissue composition in glucocorticoid users and validation with magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;50(2):490–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Magrey MN, Lewis S, Asim Khan M. Utility of DXA scanning and risk factors for osteoporosis in ankylosing spondylitis-a prospective study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;46(1):88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nigil Haroon N, Szabo E, Raboud JM, McDonald-Blumer H, Fung L, Josse RG, et al. Alterations of bone mineral density, bone microarchitecture and strength in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a cross-sectional study using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computerized tomography and finite element analysis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:377.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Diederichs G, Engelken F, Marshall LM, Peters K, Black DM, Issever AS, et al. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH): relation to vertebral fractures and bone density. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1789–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Damilakis J, Adams JE, Guglielmi G, Link TM. Radiation exposure in X-ray-based imaging techniques used in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol. 2011;20(11):2707–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tothill P, Hannan WJ. Precision and accuracy of measuring changes in bone mineral density by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(11):1515–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. WHO, editor. Technical Report: Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a report of a WHO study group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baim S, Binkley N, Bilezikian JP, Kendler DL, Hans DB, Lewiecki EM, et al. Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD Position Development Conference. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11(1):75–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewiecki EM, Baim S, Langman CB, Bilezikian JP. The official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: perceptions and commentary. J Clin Densitom. 2009;12(3):267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewiecki EM, Gordon CM, Baim S, Binkley N, Bilezikian JP, Kendler DL, et al. Special report on the 2007 adult and pediatric Position Development Conferences of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(10):1369–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gluer CC. Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res. 1999;14(11):1952–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Humbert L, Martelli Y, Fonolla R, Steghofer M, Di Gregorio S, Malouf J, et al. 3D-DXA: assessing the femoral shape, the trabecular macrostructure and the cortex in 3D from DXA images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017;36(1):27–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vaananen SP, Grassi L, Flivik G, Jurvelin JS, Isaksson H. Generation of 3D shape, density, cortical thickness and finite element mesh of proximal femur from a DXA image. Med Image Anal. 2015;24(1):125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arabi A, Baddoura R, Awada H, Khoury N, Haddad S, Ayoub G, et al. Discriminative ability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry site selection in identifying patients with osteoporotic fractures. Bone. 2007;40(4):1060–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1929–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maricic M. Use of DXA-based technology for detection and assessment of risk of vertebral fracture in rheumatology practice. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16(8):436.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA, Barrett-Connor E, Miller PD, Wehren LE, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(10):1108–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Dawson-Hughes B, Melton LJ 3rd, McCloskey EV. The effects of a FRAX revision for the USA. Osteoporos Int. 2009;21(1):35–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):385–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Strom O, McCloskey E. FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone. 2009;44(5):734–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Link TM. Radiology of osteoporosis. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016;67(1):28–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal I, Ward RJ, Roberts CC, Bencardino JT, Arnold E, Baccei SJ, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria((R)) osteoporosis and bone mineral density. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Link TM. Screening: assessing bone structure in the prediction of osteoporotic fractures. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;8(1):6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva BC, Leslie WD, Resch H, Lamy O, Lesnyak O, Binkley N, et al. Trabecular bone score: a noninvasive analytical method based upon the DXA image. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(3):518–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bousson V, Bergot C, Sutter B, Levitz P, Cortet B, Scientific Committee of the Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur les O. Trabecular bone score (TBS): available knowledge, clinical relevance, and future prospects. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(5):1489–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leib E, Winzenrieth R, Lamy O, Hans D. Comparing bone microarchitecture by trabecular bone score (TBS) in Caucasian American women with and without osteoporotic fractures. Calcif Tissue Int. 2014;95(3):201–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hans D, Barthe N, Boutroy S, Pothuaud L, Winzenrieth R, Krieg MA. Correlations between trabecular bone score, measured using anteroposterior dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry acquisition, and 3-dimensional parameters of bone microarchitecture: an experimental study on human cadaver vertebrae. J Clin Densitom. 2011;14(3):302–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Boutroy S, Hans D, Sornay-Rendu E, Vilayphiou N, Winzenrieth R, Chapurlat R. Trabecular bone score improves fracture risk prediction in non-osteoporotic women: the OFELY study. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(1):77–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arterburn DE, Olsen MK, Smith VA, Livingston EH, Van Scoyoc L, Yancy WS Jr, et al. Association between bariatric surgery and long-term survival. JAMA. 2015;313(1):62–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McCloskey EV, Oden A, Harvey NC, Leslie WD, Hans D, Johansson H, et al. A meta-analysis of trabecular bone score in fracture risk prediction and its relationship to FRAX. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31(5):940–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Martineau P, Leslie WD, Johansson H, Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Hans D, et al. In which patients does lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) have the largest effect? Bone. 2018;113:161–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Breban S, Briot K, Kolta S, Paternotte S, Ghazi M, Fechtenbaum J, et al. Identification of rheumatoid arthritis patients with vertebral fractures using bone mineral density and trabecular bone score. J Clin Densitom. 2012;15(3):260–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carey JJ, Buehring B. Current imaging techniques in osteoporosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018;36(Suppl 114(5)):115–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheung AM, McKenna MJ, van de Laarschot DM, Zillikens MC, Peck V, Srighanthan J, et al. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: detection of atypical femur fractures. J Clin Densitom. 2019.

  39. Black DM, Greenspan SL, Ensrud KE, Palermo L, McGowan JA, Lang TF, et al. The effects of parathyroid hormone and alendronate alone or in combination in postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(13):1207–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Link TM, Lang TF. Axial QCT: clinical applications and new developments. J Clin Densitom. 2014.

  41. Lange U, Kluge A, Strunk J, Teichmann J, Bachmann G. Ankylosing spondylitis and bone mineral density-what is the ideal tool for measurement? Rheumatol Int. 2005;26(2):115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guglielmi G, Floriani I, Torri V, Li J, van Kuijk C, Genant HK, et al. Effect of spinal degenerative changes on volumetric bone mineral density of the central skeleton as measured by quantitative computed tomography. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(3):269–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gluer CC. Quantitative ultrasound-it is time to focus research efforts. Bone. 2007;40(1):9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Moayyeri A, Adams JE, Adler RA, Krieg MA, Hans D, Compston J, et al. Quantitative ultrasound of the heel and fracture risk assessment: an updated meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):143–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stein EM, Rosete F, Young P, Kamanda-Kosseh M, McMahon DJ, Luo G, et al. Clinical assessment of the 1/3 radius using a new desktop ultrasonic bone densitometer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(3):388–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Krieg MA, Barkmann R, Gonnelli S, Stewart A, Bauer DC, Del Rio BL, et al. Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11(1):163–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. • Oo WM, Naganathan V, Bo MT, Hunter DJ. Clinical utilities of quantitative ultrasound in osteoporosis associated with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018;8(1):100–13 This review article shows that although Quantitative Ultrasound may have some complementary benefits to fracture risk prediction models, current literature does not support the substitution of Quantitative Ultrasound for DXA in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis in the rheumatic diseases.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Burt LA, Manske SL, Hanley DA, Boyd SK. Lower bone density, impaired microarchitecture, and strength predict future fragility fracture in postmenopausal women: 5-year follow-up of the Calgary CaMos cohort. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(4):589–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chapurlat R, Pialat JB, Merle B, Confavreux E, Duvert F, Fontanges E, et al. The QUALYOR (QUalite Osseuse LYon Orleans) study: a new cohort for non invasive evaluation of bone quality in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Rationale and study design. Arch Osteoporos. 2017;13(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Samelson EJ, Broe KE, Xu H, Yang L, Boyd S, Biver E, et al. Cortical and trabecular bone microarchitecture as an independent predictor of incident fracture risk in older women and men in the bone microarchitecture international consortium (BoMIC): a prospective study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(1):34–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vranken L, Wyers CE, van Rietbergen B, Driessen JHM, Geusens P, Janzing HMJ, et al. The association between prevalent vertebral fractures and bone quality of the distal radius and distal tibia as measured with HR-pQCT in postmenopausal women with a recent non-vertebral fracture at the Fracture Liaison Service. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(9):1789–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kazakia GJ, Hyun B, Burghardt AJ, Krug R, Newitt DC, de Papp AE, et al. In vivo determination of bone structure in postmenopausal women: a comparison of HR-pQCT and high-field MR imaging. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23(4):463–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kroker A, Zhu Y, Manske SL, Barber R, Mohtadi N, Boyd SK. Quantitative in vivo assessment of bone microarchitecture in the human knee using HR-pQCT. Bone. 2017;97:43–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Michalak GJ, Walker R, Boyd SK. Concurrent assessment of cartilage morphology and bone microarchitecture in the human knee using contrast-enhanced HR-pQCT imaging. J Clin Densitom. 2019;22(1):74–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sada K, Chiba K, Kajiyama S, Okazaki N, Yonekura A, Tomita M, et al. Bone mineral density and microstructure of the elbow in baseball pitchers: an analysis by second-generation HR-pQCT. J Clin Densitom. 2019.

  56. Barnabe C, Feehan L, Spectra. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography imaging protocol for metacarpophalangeal joints in inflammatory arthritis: the SPECTRA collaboration. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(7):1494–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Burghardt AJ, Buie HR, Laib A, Majumdar S, Boyd SK. Reproducibility of direct quantitative measures of cortical bone microarchitecture of the distal radius and tibia by HR-pQCT. Bone. 2010;47(3):519–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Mueller DK, Kutscherenko A, Bartel H, Vlassenbroek A, Ourednicek P, Erckenbrecht J. Phantom-less QCT BMD system as screening tool for osteoporosis without additional radiation. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(3):375–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nishiyama KK, Macdonald HM, Hanley DA, Boyd SK. Women with previous fragility fractures can be classified based on bone microarchitecture and finite element analysis measured with HR-pQCT. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(5):1733–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Duboeuf F, Chapurlat RD. Bone microarchitecture assessed by HR-pQCT as predictor of fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the OFELY study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(6):1243–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Boutroy S, Bouxsein ML, Munoz F, Delmas PD. In vivo assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(12):6508–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Chiba K, Okazaki N, Kurogi A, Isobe Y, Yonekura A, Tomita M, et al. Precision of second-generation high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography: intra- and intertester reproducibilities and factors involved in the reproducibility of cortical porosity. J Clin Densitom. 2018;21(2):295–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. MacNeil JA, Boyd SK. Improved reproducibility of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for measurement of bone quality. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30(6):792–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhou B, Zhang Z, Wang J, Yu YE, Liu XS, Nishiyama KK, et al. In vivo precision of digital topological skeletonization based individual trabecula segmentation (ITS) analysis of trabecular microstructure at the distal radius and tibia by HR-pQCT. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2016;76:83–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tjong W, Nirody J, Burghardt AJ, Carballido-Gamio J, Kazakia GJ. Structural analysis of cortical porosity applied to HR-pQCT data. Med Phys. 2014;41(1):013701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kazakia GJ, Tjong W, Nirody JA, Burghardt AJ, Carballido-Gamio J, Patsch JM, et al. The influence of disuse on bone microstructure and mechanics assessed by HR-pQCT. Bone. 2014;63:132–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Sode M, Burghardt AJ, Kazakia GJ, Link TM, Majumdar S. Regional variations of gender-specific and age-related differences in trabecular bone structure of the distal radius and tibia. Bone. 2010;46(6):1652–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Carballido-Gamio J, Bonaretti S, Kazakia GJ, Khosla S, Majumdar S, Lang TF, et al. Statistical parametric mapping of HR-pQCT images: a tool for population-based local comparisons of micro-scale bone features. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(4):949–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Langsetmo L, Peters KW, Burghardt AJ, Ensrud KE, Fink HA, Cawthon PM, et al. Volumetric bone mineral density and failure load of distal limbs predict incident clinical fracture independent HR-pQCT BMD and failure load predicts incident clinical fracture of FRAX and clinical risk factors among older men. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(7):1302–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Shimizu T, Choi HJ, Heilmeier U, Tanaka M, Burghardt AJ, Gong J, et al. Assessment of 3-month changes in bone microstructure under anti-TNFalpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Pialat JB, Burghardt AJ, Sode M, Link TM, Majumdar S. Visual grading of motion induced image degradation in high resolution peripheral computed tomography: impact of image quality on measures of bone density and micro-architecture. Bone. 2012;50(1):111–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gordon CM, Leonard MB, Zemel BS. International Society for Clinical D. 2013 Pediatric Position Development Conference: executive summary and reflections. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17(2):219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Vierge M, Preka E, Ginhoux T, Chapurlat R, Ranchin B, Bacchetta J. Pediatric bone evaluation with HR-pQCT: a comparison between standard and height-adjusted positioning protocols in a cohort of teenagers with chronic kidney disease. Arch Pediatr. 2019;26(3):151–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Graeff C, Timm W, Nickelsen TN, Farrerons J, Marin F, Barker C, et al. Monitoring teriparatide-associated changes in vertebral microstructure by high-resolution CT in vivo: results from the EUROFORS study. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(9):1426–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ito M, Ikeda K, Nishiguchi M, Shindo H, Uetani M, Hosoi T, et al. Multi-detector row CT imaging of vertebral microstructure for evaluation of fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(10):1828–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee SH, Yun SJ, Kim DH, Jo HH, Song JG, Park YS. Diagnostic usefulness of low-dose lumbar multi-detector CT with iterative reconstruction in trauma patients: acomparison with standard-dose CT. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1077):20170181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Weinrich JM, Well L, Regier M, Behzadi C, Sehner S, Adam G, et al. MDCT in suspected lumbar spine fracture: comparison of standard and reduced dose settings using iterative reconstruction. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(7):675 e9–e15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Saha PK, Liu Y, Chen C, Jin D, Letuchy EM, Xu Z, et al. Characterization of trabecular bone plate-rod microarchitecture using multirow detector CT and the tensor scale: algorithms, validation, and applications to pilot human studies. Med Phys. 2015;42(9):5410–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Chen C, Zhang X, Guo J, Jin D, Letuchy EM, Burns TL, et al. Quantitative imaging of peripheral trabecular bone microarchitecture using MDCT. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):236–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Alabousi M, Gauthier ID, Li N, Dos Santos GM, Golev D, Patlas MN, et al. Multi-detector CT for suspected hip fragility fractures: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Radiol. 2019;26(5):549–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Rodriguez-Soto AE, Fritscher KD, Schuler B, Issever AS, Roth T, Kamelger F, et al. Texture analysis, bone mineral density, and cortical thickness of the proximal femur: fracture risk prediction. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34(6):949–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Allaire BT, Lu D, Johannesdottir F, Kopperdahl D, Keaveny TM, Jarraya M, et al. Prediction of incident vertebral fracture using CT-based finite element analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(2):323–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Chang G, Deniz CM, Honig S, Egol K, Regatte RR, Zhu Y, et al. MRI of the hip at 7T: feasibility of bone microarchitecture, high-resolution cartilage, and clinical imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(6):1384–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Han M, Chiba K, Banerjee S, Carballido-Gamio J, Krug R. Variable flip angle three-dimensional fast spin-echo sequence combined with outer volume suppression for imaging trabecular bone structure of the proximal femur. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(5):1300–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Link T, Majumdar S, Lin J, Newitt D, Augat P, Ouyang X, et al. A comparative study of trabecular bone properties in the spine and femur using high resolution MRI and CT. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13:122–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Link TM, Vieth V, Langenberg R, Meier N, Lotter A, Newitt D, et al. Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int. 2003;72(2):156–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Majumdar S, Kothari M, Augat P, Newitt DC, Link TM, Lin JC, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging: three-dimensional trabecular bone architecture and biomechanical properties. Bone. 1998;22(5):445–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Phan CM, Matsuura M, Bauer JS, Dunn TC, Newitt D, Lochmueller EM, et al. Trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus: comparison of MR imaging at 3.0 and 1.5 T with micro-CT as the standard of reference. Radiology. 2006;239(2):488–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Harrison LC, Nikander R, Sikio M, Luukkaala T, Helminen MT, Ryymin P, et al. MRI texture analysis of femoral neck: detection of exercise load-associated differences in trabecular bone. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(6):1359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ma YJ, Chang EY, Bydder GM, Du J. Can ultrashort-TE (UTE) MRI sequences on a 3-T clinical scanner detect signal directly from collagen protons: freeze-dry and D2 O exchange studies of cortical bone and Achilles tendon specimens. NMR Biomed. 2016;29(7):912–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Techawiboonwong A, Song HK, Leonard MB, Wehrli FW. Cortical bone water: in vivo quantification with ultrashort echo-time MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;248(3):824–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Rajapakse CS, Bashoor-Zadeh M, Li C, Sun W, Wright AC, Wehrli FW. Volumetric cortical bone porosity assessment with MR imaging: validation and clinical feasibility. Radiology. 2015;276(2):526–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cortet B, Boutry N, Dubois P, Bourel P, Cotten A, Marchandise X. In vivo comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance image analysis of the distal radius in the assessment of osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom. 2000;3:15–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Link T, Majumdar S, Augat P, Lin J, Newitt D, Lu Y, et al. In vivo high resolution MRI of the calcaneus: differences in trabecular structure in osteoporosis patients. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13:1175–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Majumdar S, Link TM, Augat P, Lin JC, Newitt D, Lane NE, et al. Trabecular bone architecture in the distal radius using magnetic resonance imaging in subjects with fractures of the proximal femur. Magnetic Resonance Science Center and Osteoporosis and Arthritis Research Group. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(3):231–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Wehrli F, Gomberg B, Saha P, Song H, Hwang S, Snyder P. Digital topological analysis of in vivo magnetic resonance microimages of trabecular bone reveals structural implications of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2001;16:1520–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Wehrli FW, Leonard MB, Saha PK, Gomberg BR. Quantitative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging reveals structural implications of renal osteodystrophy on trabecular and cortical bone. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(1):83–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Benito M, Gomberg B, Wehrli FW, Weening RH, Zemel B, Wright AC, et al. Deterioration of trabecular architecture in hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(4):1497–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Chesnut CH 3rd, Majumdar S, Newitt DC, Shields A, Van Pelt J, Laschansky E, et al. Effects of salmon calcitonin on trabecular microarchitecture as determined by magnetic resonance imaging: results from the QUEST study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(9):1548–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Folkesson J, Goldenstein J, Carballido-Gamio J, Kazakia G, Burghardt AJ, Rodriguez A, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of the effects of alendronate on MRI bone microarchitecture in postmenopausal osteopenic women. Bone. 2010;48(3):611–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Gersing AS, Jungmann PM, Schwaiger BJ, Zarnowski J, Kopp FK, Landwehr S, et al. Longitudinal changes in subchondral bone structure as assessed with MRI are associated with functional outcome after high tibial osteotomy. J ISAKOS. 2018;3(4):205–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California, 400 Parnassus Ave, A-367, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Thomas M. Link & Galateia Kazakia

Authors
  1. Thomas M. Link
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Galateia Kazakia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas M. Link.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Link, T.M., Kazakia, G. Update on Imaging-Based Measurement of Bone Mineral Density and Quality. Curr Rheumatol Rep 22, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-020-00892-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-020-00892-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation