4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quantitative Ultrashort Echo Time (UTE) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Bone: An Update

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Bone possesses a highly complex hierarchical structure comprised of mineral (~45% by volume), organic matrix (~35%) and water (~20%). Water exists in bone in two forms: as bound water (BW), which is bound to bone mineral and organic matrix, or as pore water (PW), which resides in Haversian canals as well as in lacunae and canaliculi. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been increasingly used for assessment of cortical and trabecular bone. However, bone appears as a signal void on conventional MR sequences because of its short T2 *. Ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequences with echo times (TEs) 100–1,000 times shorter than those of conventional sequences allow direct imaging of BW and PW in bone. A series of quantitative UTE MRI techniques has been developed for bone evaluation. UTE and adiabatic inversion recovery prepared UTE (IR-UTE) sequences have been developed to quantify BW and PW. UTE magnetization transfer (UTE-MT) sequences have been developed to quantify collagen backbone protons, and UTE quantitative susceptibility mapping (UTE-QSM) sequences have been developed to assess bone mineral.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intracortical remodelling and porosity in the distal radius and post-mortem femurs of women: a cross-sectional study.

          Osteoporosis research has focused on vertebral fractures and trabecular bone loss. However, non-vertebral fractures at predominantly cortical sites account for 80% of all fractures and most fracture-related morbidity and mortality in old age. We aimed to re-examine cortical bone as a source of bone loss in the appendicular skeleton. In this cross-sectional study, we used high-resolution peripheral CT to quantify and compare cortical and trabecular bone loss from the distal radius of adult women, and measured porosity using scanning electron microscopy. Exclusion criteria were diseases or prescribed drugs affecting bone metabolism. We also measured bone mineral density of post-mortem hip specimens from female cadavers using densitometry. Age-related differences in total, cortical, and trabecular bone mass, trabecular bone of cortical origin, and cortical and trabecular densities were calculated. We investigated 122 white women with a mean age of 62.8 (range 27-98) years. Between ages 50 and 80 years (n=89), 72.1 mg (95% CI 67.7-76.4) hydroxyapatite (68%) of 106.5 mg hydroxyapatite of bone lost at the distal radius was cortical and 34.3 mg (30.5-37.8) hydroxyapatite (32%) was trabecular; 17.1 mg (11.7-22.5) hydroxyapatite (16%) of total bone loss occurred between ages 50 and 64 years (n=34) and 89.4 mg (83.7-101.1) hydroxyapatite (84%) after age 65 years (n=55). Remodelling within cortex adjacent to the marrow accounted for 49.9 mg (45.4-53.7) hydroxyapatite (47%) of bone loss. Between ages 50-64 years (n=34) and 80 years and older (n=33), cortical density decreased by 127.8 mg (93.1-162.1) hydroxyapatite per cm(3) (15%, p<0.0001) before porosity trabecularising the cortex was included, but 374.3 mg (318.2-429.5) hydroxyapatite per cm(3) (43%, p<0.0001) after; trabecular density decreased by 18.2 mg (-1.4 to 38.2) hydroxyapatite per cm(3) (14%, p=0.06) before cortical remnants were excluded, but 68.7 mg (37.7-90.4) hydroxyapatite per cm(3) (52%, p<0.0001) after. Accurate assessment of bone structure, especially porosity producing cortical remnants, could improve identification of individuals at high and low risk of fracture and therefore assist targeting of treatment. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Age-related changes in the collagen network and toughness of bone.

            The hypothesis of this study is that the mechanical integrity of the collagen network in bone deteriorates with age, and such adverse changes correlate with the decreased toughness of aged bone. To test the hypothesis, 30 human cadaveric femurs from donors ranging from 19 to 89 years of age were tested to determine the age-related changes in the mechanical properties of demineralized bone and fresh bone samples. Along with bone porosity, bone density, and weight fractions of the mineral and organic phases, collagen denaturation and concentrations of collagen cross-links (HP, hydroxylysylpyridinoline; LP, lysylpyridinoline; PE, pentosidine) were determined for these bone specimens as a function age. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that age-dependent changes were reflected in the decreased strength, work to fracture, and fracture toughness of bone; in the decreased strength, elastic modulus, and work to fracture of the collagen network; as well as in the increased concentration of pentosidine (a marker of nonenzymatic glycation) and increased bone porosity. Regression analyses of the measured parameters showed that the age-related decrease in work to fracture of bone (especially its postyield portion) correlated significantly with deterioration in the mechanical integrity of the collagen network. The results of this study indicate that the adverse changes in the collagen network occur as people age and such changes may lead to the decreased toughness of bone. Also, the results suggest that nonenzymatic glycation may be an important contributing factor causing changes in collagen and, consequently, leading to the age-related deterioration of bone quality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Cortical or Trabecular Bone: What’s the Difference?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
                Front. Endocrinol.
                Frontiers in Endocrinology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-2392
                18 September 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 567417
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, CA, United States
                [2] 2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, CA, United States
                [3] 3Research Service, Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System , San Diego, CA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Roland Krug, University of California, San Francisco, United States

                Reviewed by: Volker Rasche, University of Ulm, Germany; Alan C. Seifert, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States

                *Correspondence: Ya-Jun Ma yam013@ 123456ucsd.edu

                This article was submitted to Bone Research, a section of the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology

                Article
                10.3389/fendo.2020.567417
                7531487
                33071975
                e7c77c9a-abb8-49e0-94fe-d3f1e8e63443
                Copyright © 2020 Ma, Jerban, Jang, Chang, Chang and Du.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                : 17 August 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 12, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 82, Pages: 15, Words: 8957
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health 10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: R01AR068987
                Award ID: R01AR075825
                Categories
                Endocrinology
                Review

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                mri,cortical bone,trabecular bone,ute,water contents,macromolecular fraction,bone mineral density

                Comments

                Comment on this article