首页> 外文期刊>Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery >Computed tomography-based opportunistic osteoporosis assessment: a comparison of two software applications for lumbar vertebral volumetric bone mineral density measurements
【24h】

Computed tomography-based opportunistic osteoporosis assessment: a comparison of two software applications for lumbar vertebral volumetric bone mineral density measurements

机译:基于计算机的断层摄影机会骨质疏松症评估:两个软件应用对腰椎体积骨密度测量的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: We aimed to compare two volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) analysis programs, regarding (I) agreement of vBMD values based on mono- and dual-energy computed tomography (MECT and DECT) scans and (II) suitability for analyzing DECT data obtained at different energies. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed two abdominal CT datasets: one performed in a MECT scan (vertebrae L1–L3) and one in a DECT scan (vertebrae L1–L4). Each dataset included different individuals [MECT 15 patients (45 vertebrae) and DECT 12 patients (48 vertebrae), respectively]. vBMD analysis was conducted using Philips IntelliSpace (IP) and Mindways qCT Pro (MW). Regarding the DECT scans, vBMD analysis was done at three different energies: 80, 150 and synthetic 120 kVp and for MECT scan at 120 kVp. For comparison of vBMD results between different software (aim 1) MECT 120 kVp and DECT synthetic 120 kVp data was used. For analyzing suitability of using different DECT energies for vBMD assessment (aim 2) all three DECT energies were used and results from each software was analyzed separately. Results: vBMD assessed with MW and IP, respectively correlated significantly for both the MECT (r=0.876; P0.05). The IP analysis as well showed significant correlation between 120 kVp and the other energies (r=0.769 and r=0.713, respectively), but differences in absolute vBMD values between the energies (P≤0.001). Conclusions: We show that the correlations between the vBMD derived from the two investigated software solutions were generally good but that absolute vBMD value did differ and might impact the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis. Though small, our study data indicate that vBMD might be assessed in energies other than 120 kVp when using MW but not when using IP.
机译:背景:我们旨在比较两个体积骨密度(VBMD)分析计划,关于(i)基于单能级和双能量计算断层扫描(MECT和DECT)扫描和(ii)适合分析DECT数据的扫描数据在不同的能量获得。方法:我们回顾性地分析了两个腹部CT数据集:在MECT扫描(椎骨L1-L3)中执行的腹部CT数据集,在DECT扫描(椎骨L1-L4)中。每个数据集包括不同的个体[Mect 15患者(45名椎骨)和Dect 12名患者(48名患者)]。使用Philips IntelliSpace(IP)和Mindways QCT Pro(MW)进行VBMD分析。关于DECT扫描,VBMD分析在三种不同的能量下进行:80,150和合成120 kVP,并在120 kVp下进行MECT扫描。为了比较VBMD在不同软件(AIM 1)MECT 120 kVP和DECT合成120 kVP数据之间的比较。为了分析使用不同DECT能量的VBMD评估(AIM 2)所有三个DECT能量的应用,并且分别分别分析了每个软件的结果。结果:VBMD用MW和IP评估,分别对MECT(r = 0.876; p0.05)显着相关。 IP分析表明,120 kVp和其他能量之间的显着相关性(r = 0.769和r = 0.713),但在能量(p≤0.001)之间的绝对VBMD值差异。结论:我们表明,VBMD之间的相关性来自两种调查的软件解决方案的相关性通常很好,但绝对VBMD值不同,可能会影响骨质疏松症的临床诊断。虽然小,我们的研究数据表明,在使用MW时,可以在120 kVp以外的能量中评估VBMD但不使用IP。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号