Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0277831.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277831. eCollection 2022.

Bi-Directional Axial Transmission measurements applied in a clinical environment

Affiliations

Bi-Directional Axial Transmission measurements applied in a clinical environment

Jean-Gabriel Minonzio et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Accurate measurement of cortical bone parameters may improve fracture risk assessment and help clinicians on the best treatment strategy. Patients at risk of fracture are currently detected using the current X-Ray gold standard DXA (Dual XRay Absorptiometry). Different alternatives, such as 3D X-Rays, Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Quantitative Ultrasound (QUS) devices, have been proposed, the latter having advantages of being portable and sensitive to mechanical and geometrical properties. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the performance of a Bi-Directional Axial Transmission (BDAT) device used by trained operators in a clinical environment with older subjects. The device, positioned at one-third distal radius, provides two velocities: VFAS (first arriving signal) and VA0 (first anti-symmetrical guided mode). Moreover, two parameters are obtained from an inverse approach: Ct.Th (cortical thickness) and Ct.Po (cortical porosity), along with their ratio Ct.Po/Ct.Th. The areal bone mineral density (aBMD) was obtained using DXA at the femur and spine. One hundred and six patients (81 women, 25 men) from Marien Hospital and St. Anna Hospital (Herne, Germany) were included in this study. Age ranged from 41 to 95 years, while body mass index (BMI) ranged from 16 to 47 kg.m-2. Three groups were considered: 79 non-fractured patients (NF, 75±13years), 27 with non-traumatic fractures (F, 80±9years) including 14 patients with non-vertebral fractures (NVF, 84±7years). Weak to moderate significant Spearman correlations (R ranging from 0.23 to 0.53, p < 0.05) were found between ultrasound parameters and age, BMI. Using multivariate Partial Least Square discrimination analyses with Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (PLS-LOOCV), we found the combination of VFAS and the ratio Ct.Po/Ct.Th to be predictive for all non traumatic fractures (F) with the odds ratio (OR) equals to 2.5 [1.6-3.4] and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) equal to 0.63 [0.62-0.65]. For the group NVF, combination of four parameters VA0. Ct.Th, Ct.Po and Ct.Po/Ct.Po, along with age provides a discrimination model with OR and AUC equals to 7.5 [6.0-9.1] and 0.75 [0.73-0.76]. When restricted to a smaller population (87 patients) common to both BDAT and DXA, BDAT ORs and AUCs are comparable or slightly higher to values obtained with DXA. The fracture risk assessment by BDAT method in older patients, in a clinical setting, suggests the benefit of the affordable and transportable device for the routine use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Typical examples of Norm (left) and Proj (right) functions measured in vivo: maximum in the (Ct.Th—Ct.Po) plane (right) corresponds to the best fitting wave guide model, shown with lines in the (fk) plane (left), and provides estimates of cortical thickness and porosity.
Fig 2
Fig 2. BDAT measurement failure rate and distribution for BMI and age, for the first population (106 patients).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Estimation of aBMD at femur neck (a), total femur (b) and spine (c) from ultrasound Bi-Directional Axial Transmission and anthropometric parameters using PLS regression.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clynes MA, Harvey NC, Curtis EM, Fuggle NR, Dennison EM, Cooper C. The epidemiology of osteoporosis. British medical bulletin. 2020;133(1):105–117. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldaa005 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ormeño J, Martínez R, Frías C, Plessing C, Quevedo I. Decreasing hip fracture rates among older adults in Chile, 2001–2019. Archives of Osteoporosis. 2022;17:26. doi: 10.1007/s11657-022-01067-z - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu J, Curtis E, Cooper C, Harvey N. State of the art in osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 2019;42. doi: 10.1007/s40618-019-01041-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Oliveira MA, Moraes R, Castanha EB, Prevedello AS, Filho JV, Bussolaro FA, et al.. Osteoporosis Screening: Applied Methods and Technological Trends. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2022; p. 103887. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2022.103887 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Choksi P, Jepsen KJ, Clines GA. The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools. Clinical diabetes and endocrinology. 2018;4:12. doi: 10.1186/s40842-018-0062-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types