Journals / Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.) / 2013 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

Osteoporozda trabeküler kemik yapısının değerlendirilmesinde niceliksel manyetik rezonans görüntüleme değerli midir?

Is quantitative magnetic resonance imaging valuable in the assessment Is quantitative magnetic resonance imaging valuable in the assessment of trabecular bone structure in osteoporosis?

Pages
2–6
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: T2 m easurements o f l umbar v ertebra o n quantitative magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in evaluation of bone trabeculae in osteoporosis, and may also be helpful in differentiation of osteoporotic from normal, and osteopenic from osteoporotic patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the value of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of bone trabeculae in osteoporosis by comparing the results with dual-energy X-ray (DXA) absorptiometry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and methods: The study consisted of 85 postmenopausal women (mean age 57.2 years; range 43 to 83 years) underwent both DXA absorptiometry and lumbar quantitative magnetic resonance imaging.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: T2 m easurements o f l umbar v ertebra o n quantitative magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in evaluation of bone trabeculae in osteoporosis, and may also be helpful in differentiation of osteoporotic from normal, and osteopenic from osteoporotic patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the value of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of bone trabeculae in osteoporosis by comparing the results with dual-energy X-ray (DXA) absorptiometry. Patients and methods: The study consisted of 85 postmenopausal women (mean age 57.2 years; range 43 to 83 years) underwent both DXA absorptiometry and lumbar quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. T2 a nd T 2* values were calculated by magnetic resonance imaging and the results were compared with bone mineral density. Results: According to bone mineral density t-scores; there were 32 normal, 30 osteopenic, and 23 osteoporotic patients. T2 values of L1- L4 were different in normal with osteoporotic, and the osteopenic with osteoporotic groups. There were increased T2 values with reducing t-scores. Comparing the normal and osteopenic groups, no statistical difference was found in T2 measurements of lumbar vertebrae, except L4. T2* values of L1-L4 vertebrae were not statistically different between the study groups. Conclusion: T2 m easurements o f l umbar v ertebra o n quantitative magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in evaluation of bone trabeculae in osteoporosis, and may also be helpful in differentiation of osteoporotic from normal, and osteopenic from osteoporotic patients.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmada çift enerjili X-ışını (DXA) absorpsiyometri ile sonuçlar karşılaştırılarak osteoporozda kemik trabeküllerinin değerlendirilmesinde niceliksel manyetik rezonans görüntülemenin değeri ortaya konuldu. Hastalar ve yöntemler: Çalışmaya DXA absorpsiyometri ve niceliksel manyetik rezonans görüntüleme incelemeleri yapılan 85 menopoz sonrası kadın (ort. yaş 57.2 yıl; dağılım 43-83 yıl) dahil edildi. Manyetik rezonans görüntülemede T2 ve T2* değerleri ölçüldü ve sonuçları kemik mineral yoğunluğu ile karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Kemik mineral yoğunluğu t-skorlarına göre; 32 normal, 30 osteopenik ve 23 osteoporotik hasta bulunmaktaydı. L1-L4 vertebra T2 ölçümleri normal ve osteoporotik ile osteopenik ve osteoporotik gruplar arasında farklı bulundu. T-skoru azaldıkça T2 değerinde artış vardı. Normal ve osteopenik gruplar karşılaştırıldığında; L4 vertebra dışında, T2 ölçümlerinde istatistiksel fark bulunmadı. L1-L4 vertebra T2* ölçümleri çalışma grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak farklı değildi. Sonuç: Niceliksel manyetik rezonans görüntülemede lomber T2 ölçümleri osteoporozda kemik trabeküllerinin değerlendirilmesinde yararlı olabilmekte ve normal hasta ile osteoporotik ve osteopenik ile osteoporotik hastaları ayırt etmede yardımcı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, K., TOKGÖZ, N., ÇELİK, A., AKDENİZ, M., UÇAR, M. (2022). Osteoporozda trabeküler kemik yapısının değerlendirilmesinde niceliksel manyetik rezonans görüntüleme değerli midir?. Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.), Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 2–6. https://ajindex.com/articles/498615

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 2012;263:3-17. doi: 10.1148/ radiol.12110462
  2. Atik OS. Is DXA the gold standard? [Article in English, Turkish] Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2011;22:63
  3. Akyol Y, Alaylı G, Diren B, Cengiz K, Canturk F. Assessment of trabecular bone structure with magnetic resonance T2 relaxation time in osteoporosis. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 2008;54:50-3
  4. Brunader R, Shelton DK. Radiologic bone assessment in the evaluation of osteoporosis. Am Fam Physician 2002;65:1357-64
  5. Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767-73
  6. Atik OS. FRAXTM and Turkey (Osteoporotic fracture risk assessment). Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2008;19:100
  7. Brismar TB. MR relaxometry of lumbar spine, hip, and calcaneus in healthy premenopausal women: relationship with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1215-21
  8. Link TM, Majumdar S, Augat P, Lin JC, Newitt D, Lane NE, et al. Proximal femur: assessment for osteoporosis with T2* decay characteristics at MR imaging. Radiology 1998;209:531-6
  9. Gül O, Atik OS, Erdoğan D, Göktaş G. Is bone microstructure different between osteopenic and osteoporotic patients with femoral neck fracture?. [Article in Turkish] Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2012;23:15-9
  10. Eren OT, Küçükkaya M, Balcı V, Kabukçuoğlu Y, Kuzgun Ü. Radius distal uç kırıklı hastalarda kemik mineral yoğunluğu ölçümü. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2003;14:158-63
  11. Hatipoglu HG, Selvi A, Ciliz D, Yuksel E. Quantitative and diffusion MR imaging as a new method to assess osteoporosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1934-7
  12. Newitt DC, Majumdar S, van Rietbergen B, von Ingersleben G, Harris ST, Genant HK, et al. In vivo assessment of architecture and micro-finite element analysis derived indices of mechanical properties of trabecular bone in the radius. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:6-17
  13. Link TM, Majumdar S, Augat P, Lin JC, 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
  14. Maris TG, Damilakis J, Sideri L, Deimling M, Papadokostakis G, Papakonstantinou O, et al. Assessment of the skeletal status by MR relaxometry techniques of the lumbar spine: comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Eur J Radiol 2004;50:245-56