Experimental Bone Biopsies Using Two Bone Biopsy Needles: Quantitative Micro-CT Analysis of Bone Specimens

• Published in: Academic Radiology
• Main Authors: Park, Eun-Ah, Hong, Sung Hwan, Kim, Kwang Gi, Choi, Ja-Young, Kang, Heung Sik, Shin, Chan Soo
• Other Authors: 박은아, 홍성환, 김광기, 최자영, 신찬수, 강흥식
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC 2009
• Subjects: Micro-computed tomography; bone biopsy; trabecular thickness; bone histomorphometry; microstructure; Fyfe; Thomsen; DML
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10371/76352; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.09.006

Rationale and Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate whether samples obtained using two kinds of small trephines, 2.4 and 1.8 mm in inner diameter, are sufficient for the quantitative evaluation of metabolic bone disease using micro-computed tomographic (CT) three-dimensional parameter data sets. Materials and Methods. A total of 19 porcine lumbar vertebrae prior to biopsy and biopsy samples from the use of 2.4- and 1.8-mm trephines were examined using micro-CT imaging. For quantitative analysis, seven three-dimensional structural parameters, including trabecular bone volume, trabecular number, trabecular thickness, trabecular separation, the structure model index, the degree of anisotropy, and the trabecular bone pattern factor, were measured using CtAn software. The difference and agreement between the biopsy samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens before biopsy were assessed using paired t tests and Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. Results. There were no significant differences between the 2.4-mm samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens for trabecular bone volume, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number, with mean differences of -0.9%, 2.3%, and -3.1%, respectively; there was no significant difference between the 1.8-mm samples and the baseline vertebrae specimens only for trabecular thickness, with a mean difference of 1.9%. Conclusion. Samples taken from the use of the 2.4-mm trephine were better for quantitative analysis than those from the use of the 1.8-mm trephine and were acceptable for the quantitative evaluation of trabecular bone volume, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number. Rupprecht M, 2006, J ORTHOP RES, V24, P664, DOI 10.1002/jor.20099 Guggenbuhl P, 2006, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V17, P447, DOI 10.1007/s00198-005-0007-8 Chappard D, 2005, J BONE MINER RES, V20, P1177, DOI 10.1359/JBMR.050205 Roberts CC, 2005, SKELETAL RADIOL, V34, P329, DOI 10.1007/s00256-004-0859-6 Thomsen JS, 2005, J MICROSC-OXFORD, V218, P171, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2005.01469.x Nageie E, 2004, CALCIFIED TISSUE INT, V75, P15, DOI 10.1007/s00223-004-0151-8 Cooper DML, 2004, CALCIFIED TISSUE INT, V74, P437, DOI 10.1007/s00223-003-0071-z David V, 2003, J BONE MINER RES, V18, P1622 Trueba D, 2003, SEMIN DIALYSIS, V16, P341 Boutry N, 2003, RADIOLOGY, V227, P708, DOI 10.1148/ Pothuaud L, 2002, J BONE MINER RES, V17, P1883 Langub MC, 2000, PEDIATR NEPHROL, V14, P629 Monier-Faugere MC, 2000, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V11, P1093 Legrand E, 2000, J BONE MINER RES, V15, P13 Uchiyama T, 1997, CALCIFIED TISSUE INT, V61, P493 Hildebrand T, 1997, J MICROSC-OXFORD, V185, P67 Ward JC, 1996, SPINE, V21, P2484 MAJUMDAR S, 1995, BONE, V17, P417 ITO M, 1995, RADIOLOGY, V194, P55 HAHN M, 1992, BONE, V13, P327 MOORE RJ, 1989, J CLIN PATHOL, V42, P213 BLAND JM, 1986, LANCET, V1, P307 VIGORITA VJ, 1984, AM J SURG PATHOL, V8, P925 FAUGERE MC, 1983, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V65, P1314 FYFE IS, 1983, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V65, P140 WHITEHOU.WJ, 1974, J MICROSC-OXFORD, V101, P153 0