Correlations among Cervical, Thoracic, and lumbar Hounsfield Unit measurements for assessment of bone mineral density.

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density assessment using Hounsfield Unit (HU) currently depends upon the availability of computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the associations among HU measurements of the cervical (CHU), thoracic (THU), and lumbar (LHU) spine. The secondary aim of this study was to analyze the influence of patient demographic and anthropometric characteristics on HU measurements. METHODS: Radiographic records of 165 patients who underwent CT of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine were retrieved. The CHU, THU, and LHU were calculated by obtaining the mean signal intensity from the medullary portions of C3-C7, T8-T12, and L1-L4 vertebral bodies. RESULTS: Mean CHU, THU, and LHU values were 266.26 ± 88.69, 165.57 ± 55.06, and 166.45 ± 51.38. Significant differences of 100.69, 99.81, and 0.88 were observed between CHU and THU (p <.001), CHU and LHU (p <.001), and THU and LHU (p =.023). Correlations of 0.574, 0.488, and 0.686 were observed between CHU and THU (p <.001), CHU and LHU (p <.001), and THU and LHU (p <.001). No differences in HU based on sex, age, height, weight, or ethnicity were observed. Multivariate regression models demonstrated R2 values of 0.770 - 0.790 (p <.001) in prediction of LHU. CONCLUSIONS: Hounsfield Unit measurements derived from the cervical and thoracic spine correlate with the validated lumbar Hounsfield Unit. Hounsfield Unit measurements do not vary based on sex, ethnicity, age, height, or weight.

Association Between Vertebral Bone Quality Score and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for the Assessment of Bone Mineral Density in Adolescent Patients.

BACKGROUND: The MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score is an assessment tool for bone mineral density (BMD) that has been validated in adults against the clinical standard of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). However, VBQ has yet to be validated against DEXA for use in adolescents. This study evaluated the associations between adolescent VBQ scores, DEXA Z-scores, and BMD values. METHODS: The radiographic records of 63 consecutive patients between the ages of 11 and 21 who underwent MRI of the abdomen and pelvis and DEXA of the spine and hip were retrieved. The collected radiographic data consisted of the MRI-based VBQ score, DEXA Z-score, and BMD values of the femoral neck, L1-4 vertebrae, and total body. The VBQ score was calculated by taking the median signal intensity (MSI) from L1-L4 and the SI of the L3 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The VBQ score was derived as the quotient of MSIL1-L4 divided by SICSF. RESULTS: A mean VBQ score of 2.41 ± 0.29 was observed. Strong correlations of -0.749 (p<0.0001) and -0.780 (p<0.0001) were detected between the VBQ score and DEXA femoral neck and spine Z-scores, respectively. Correlations between VBQ score and DEXA femoral neck, spine, and total body BMD scores were -0.559 (p<0.0001), -0.611 (p<0.0001), and -0.516 (p<.0001), respectively. No significant correlations were found between the VBQ score and age, BMI, weight, or height. A mean difference in VBQ score of -0.155 (p=0.035) was observed between sexes. VBQ demonstrated moderate predictive ability for DEXA-derived Z-scores and BMD scores. CONCLUSIONS: VBQ scores were strongly correlated with DEXA Z-scores and moderately correlated with BMD values. The VBQ score can also be used by adolescent patients as an accessory tool to assess bone health.

Anatomic Assessment of L1-S1 Neuroforaminal Dimensions Using Computed Tomography.

BACKGROUND: Although the radiographic parameters for diagnosing central lumbar canal stenosis are well described, parameters for the diagnosis of neuroforaminal stenosis (NFS) are less well defined. Previous studies have used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiography to describe neuroforaminal dimensions (NFDs). Those methods, however, have limitations that may substantially distort measurements. Existing literature on the use of computed tomography (CT) to investigate normal NFDs is limited. METHODS: This anatomic assessment evaluated CT imaging of 300 female and 300 male subjects between 18 and 35 years of age to determine normal NFDs, specifically the sagittal anteroposterior width, axial anteroposterior width, craniocaudal height, and area. Statistical analyses were performed to assess differences in NFDs according to variables including sex, age, height, weight, body mass index, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, mean NFDs were 9.08 mm for sagittal anteroposterior width, 8.93 mm for axial anteroposterior width, 17.46 mm for craniocaudal height, and 134.78 mm 2 for area (n = 6,000 measurements each). Male subjects had larger NFDs than females at multiple levels. Both Caucasian and Asian subjects had larger NFDs than African-American subjects at multiple levels. There were no associations between foraminal dimensions and anthropometric factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes CT-based L1-S1 NFDs in young, healthy patients who presented with reasons other than back pain or pathology affecting the neuroforamen. Dimensions were influenced by sex and ethnicity but were not influenced by anthropometric factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anatomic Assessment of L1-S1 Neuroforaminal Dimensions Using Computed Tomography in 1,000 Patients: A Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVES: While the radiographic criteria for diagnosing central lumbar stenosis are well described, criteria for diagnosing neuroforaminal stenosis (NFS) are unclear. Prior research has utilized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to characterize neuroforaminal dimensions (NFDs). However, this approach has inherent limitations that can adversely impact measurement accuracy. Existing literature on the use of computed tomography (CT) to investigate normal NFDs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to describe normal lumbar NFDs that would aid in the establishment of objective quantitative criteria for the diagnosis of NFS. METHODS: This study evaluated CT imaging of 494 female and 506 male subjects between 18 and 35 years of age to determine normal NFDs, specifically the sagittal anteroposterior width, craniocaudal height, and area. Statistical analyses were performed to assess differences in NFDs according to variables including sex, height, weight, body mass index, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Without differentiating between sides or disc levels, mean NFDs were 8.71 mm for sagittal anteroposterior width, 17.73 mm for craniocaudal height, and 133.26 mm2 for area (n = 10,000 measurements each). Male subjects had larger NFDs than females at multiple levels. Asian and Caucasian subjects had larger NFDs than Hispanic and African American subjects at multiple levels. There were no associations between NFDs and anthropometric factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present study describes normal lumbar NFDs in young, healthy patients. NFDs were influenced by sex and ethnicity but not by anthropometric factors.

Applications of Interpedicular Distance and Anteroposterior Diameter in the Approximation of the Spinal Canal Area.

INTRODUCTION:  Advancements within the field of medicine revolve around increasing the efficiency of diagnosing and subsequently treating patients. One such advancement is measurements of the central canal using artificial intelligence (AI). The authors propose the possibility of AI measuring two linear distances followed by a subsequent approximation via an area equation. The lumbar spinal canal was approximated by an area calculation using the interpedicular distance (IPD) and anteroposterior diameter (AP diameter). The three shapes evaluated were an ellipse, triangle, and rectangle. METHODS:  IPD, AP diameter, and spinal canal area from L1-L5 were measured in 555 patients using the IMPAX6 (Mortsel, Belgium: Agfa-Gevaert) picture archiving and communication system. Subsequently, an approximated area of the lumbar spinal canal, assuming an ellipse shape, was calculated using ellipse equation/approximation. Triangular and rectangular approximations were done using triangle equation/approximation and rectangle equation/approximation, respectively. The equations used are the geometric equations for the area of each shape described. For example, the triangular approximation used the IPD as the base of the triangle and the AP diameter as the height. Thus, the area approximation was calculated by half of the IPD times the AP diameter. RESULTS:  The percent error of the ellipse approximation was the lowest with a range of error from 8.44% at L1 to 15.51% at L5. The triangle approximation again was the second most accurate with a range of error starting at -26.46% at L5 to -30.96% at L1. Lastly, the percentage errors of the rectangle approximation began at 38.07% at L1 to 47.07% at L5. The ellipse and rectangle approximation consistently overestimated the area of the spinal canal, while the opposite was true for the triangle approximation. A combination of these approximations could be used to construct a second-order approximation. The approximations were all highly correlated with the authors' manual measurements. Approximations at the L2 vertebrae were highest with a correlation of 0.934 closely followed by all approximations at L5 with a value of 0.931. Approximations were least correlated with the L4 vertebrae with a value of 0.905. CONCLUSION: The correlation between the approximation equations and the measured values is significantly related. The ellipse equation best predicted the area of the spinal canal followed by the triangle and then the rectangle approximation. The percent error difference of the ellipse approximation at L1 was similar in error compared to other causes of measurement error. Continued investigation into a second-order approximation may yield a more accurate approximation.