Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Outer-Boundary Assisted Segmentation and Quantification of Trabecular Bones by an Imagej Plugin
Published on: March 14, 2018
The comparability of HR-pQCT bone measurements is improved by scanning anatomically standardized regions
S Bonaretti1,2, S Majumdar1, T F Lang1
1Musculoskeletal Quantitative Imaging Research Group, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, QB3 Building, Suite 203, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Abstract:
We investigated the sensitivity of distal bone density, structure, and strength measurements by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to variability in limb length. Our results demonstrate that HR-pQCT should be performed at a standard %-of-total-limb-length to avoid substantial measurement bias in population study comparisons and the evaluation of individual skeletal status in a clinical context.
Introduction:
High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measures of bone do not account for anatomic variability in bone length: a 1-cm volume is acquired at a fixed offset from an anatomic landmark. Our goal was to evaluate HR-pQCT measurement variability introduced by imaging fixed vs. proportional volumes and to propose a standard protocol for relative anatomic positioning.
Methods:
Double-length (2-cm) scans were acquired in 30 adults. We compared measurements from 1-cm sub-volumes located at the default fixed offset, and the average %-of-length offset. The average position corresponded to 4.0% ± 1.1 mm for radius, and 7.2% ± 2.2 mm for tibia. We calculated the RMS difference in bone parameters and T-scores to determine the measurement variability related to differences in limb length. We used anthropometric ratios to estimate the mean limb length for published HR-pQCT reference data, and then calculated mean %-of-length offsets.
Results:
Variability between fixed vs. relative scan positions was highest in the radius, and for cortical bone in general (RMS difference Ct.Th = 19.5%), while individuals had T-score differentials as high as +3.0 SD (radius Ct.BMD). We estimated that average scan position for published HR-pQCT reference data corresponded to 4.0% at the radius, and 7.3% at tibia.
Conclusion:
Variability in limb length introduces significant bias to HR-pQCT measures, confounding cross-sectional analyses and limiting the clinical application for individual assessment of skeletal status. We propose to standardize scan positioning using 4.0 and 7.3% of total bone length for the distal radius and tibia, respectively.
