Degenerative discopathy is a common pathology that may require spine surgery. A metallic cylindrical pin is inserted into the vertebral body to maintain soft tissues and may be used as a reflector of ultrasonic wave to estimate bone density. The first aim of this paper is to validate a three-dimensional (3-D) model to simulate the ultrasonic propagation in a trabecular bone sample in which a metallic pin has been inserted. We also aim at determining the effect of changes of bone volume fraction (BV/TV) and of positioning errors on the quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters in this specific configuration. The approach consists in coupling finite-difference time-domain simulation with X-ray microcomputed tomography. The correlation coefficient between experimental and simulated speed of sound (SOS)—respectively, broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA)—was equal to 0.90 (respectively, 0.55). The results show a significant correlation of SOS with BV/TV (R = 0.82), while BUA values exhibit a nonlinear behavior versus BV/TV. The orientation of the pin should be controlled with an accuracy of around 1° to obtain accurate results. The results indicate that using the ultrasonic wave reflected by a pin has a potential to estimate the bone density. SOS is more reliable than BUA due to its lower sensitivity to the tilt angle.
HughesSPFreemontAJHukinsDWMcGregorAHRobertsS.The pathogenesis of degeneration of the intervertebral disc and emerging therapies in the management of back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:1298-304.
2.
LeeCK.Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:375-7.
3.
SheaTMLaunJGonzalez-BlohmSADoulgerisJJLeeWEIIIAghayevK.Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: current status. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:748393.
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785-95.
6.
LaugierPHaïatG, eds. Bone Quantitative Ultrasound. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. pp. 47-72.
7.
GarraBSLocherMFelkerSWearKA.Measurements of ultrasonic backscattered spectral centroid shift from spine in vivo: methodology and preliminary results. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:165-8.
8.
ChinKYIma-NirwanaS.Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound as a determinant of bone health status: what properties of bone does it reflect?Int J Med Sci. 2013;10:1778-83.
9.
OlszynskiWPBrownJPAdachiJDHanleyDAIoannidisGDavisonKS.Multisite quantitative ultrasound for the prediction of fractures over 5 years of follow-up: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:2027-34.
10.
MaattaMMoilanenPTimonenJPulkkinenPKorpelainenRJamsaT.Association between low-frequency ultrasound and hip fractures—comparison with DXA-based BMD. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:1471-2474.
11.
BarkmannRLaugierPMoserUDencksSKlausnerMPadillaF.A device for in vivo measurements of quantitative ultrasound variables at the human proximal femur. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55:1197-204.
12.
LiuCTangTXuFTaDMatsukawaMHuBet al. Signal of interest selection standard for ultrasonic backscatter in cancellous bone evaluation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:2714-21.
13.
JiangYLiuCLiRWangWPDingHQiQet al. Analysis of apparent integrated backscatter coefficient and backscattered spectral centroid shift in calcaneus in vivo for the ultrasonic evaluation of osteoporosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40:1307-17.
14.
SassoMTalmantMHaïatGNailiSLaugierP.Analysis of the most energetic late arrival in axially transmitted signals in cortical bone. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;56:2463-70.
15.
MathieuVChappardCVayronRMichelAHaïatG.Radial anatomic variation of ultrasonic velocity in human cortical bone. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39:2185-93.
16.
TatarinovAEgorovVSarvazyanNSarvazyanA.Multi-frequency axial transmission bone ultrasonometer. Ultrasonics. 2014;54:1162-9.
17.
GuipieriSNagataniYBoscRNguyenVHChappardCGeigerDet al. Ultrasound speed of sound measurements in trabecular bone using the echographic response of a metallic pin. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:2966-76.
18.
NagataniYImaizumiHFukudaTMatsukawaMWatanabeYOtaniT.Applicability of finite-difference time-domain method to simulation of wave propagation in cancellous bone. Jpn J Appl Phys. 2006;45:7186-90.
19.
KaufmanJJLuoGSiffertRS.Ultrasound simulation in bone. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55:1205-18.
20.
HosokawaA.Development of a numerical cancellous bone model for finite-difference time-domain simulations of ultrasound propagation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55:1219-33.
21.
BossyETalmantMLaugierP.Three-dimensional simulations of ultrasonic axial transmission velocity measurement on cortical bone models. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:2314-24.
22.
YamatoYMatsukawaMYanagitaniTYamazakiKMizukawaHNaganoA.Correlation between hydroxyapatite crystallite orientation and ultrasonic wave velocities in bovine cortical bone. Calcif Tissue Int. 2008;82:162-9.
23.
NagataniYMizunoKMatsuawaM.Two-wave behavior under various conditions of transition area from cancellous bone to cortical bone. Ultrasonics. 2014;54:1245-50.
24.
NicholsonPHFLowetGLangtondCMDequekerJVan der Perre. A comparison of time-domain and frequency-domain approaches to ultrasonic velocity measurement in trabecular bone. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:2421-35.
25.
StrelitzkiREvansJA.On the measurement of the velocity of ultrasound in the os calcis using short pulses. Eur J Ultrasound. 1996;4:205-13.
26.
WearK.The effects of frequency-dependent attenuation and dispersion on sound speed measurements: applications in human trabecular bone. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2000;47:265-73.
27.
HaïatGPadillaFBarkmannRDenksSMoserUGlüerCCet al. Optimal prediction of bone mineral density with ultrasonic measurements in excised femur. Calcif Tissue Int. 2005;77:186-92.
28.
NagataniYTachibanaRO.Multichannel instantaneous frequency analysis of ultrasound propagating in cancellous bone. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;135:1197-206.
29.
HaïatGPadillaFPeyrinFLaugierP.Variation of ultrasonic parameters with microstructure and material properties of trabecular bone: a 3D model simulation. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:665-74.
30.
PadillaFJensonFLaugierP.Estimation of trabecular thickness using ultrasonic backscatter. Ultrason Imaging. 2006;28:3-22.
31.
JensonFPadillaFLaugierP.Prediction of frequency-dependent ultrasonic backscatter in cancellous bone using statistical weak scattering model. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:455-64.
32.
ChaffaiSPeyrinFNuzzoSPorcherRBergerGLaugierP.Ultrasonic characterization of human cancellous bone using transmission and backscatter measurements: relationships to density and microstructure. Bone. 2002;30:229-37.
33.
WearK.The dependence of ultrasonic backscatter on trabecular thickness in human calcaneus: theoretical and experimental results. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2003;50:979-86.
34.
LuoGKaufmanJJChiabreraABiancoBKinneyJHHauptDet al. Computational methods for ultrasonic bone assessment. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999;25:823-30.
35.
BossyEPadillaFPeyrinFLaugierP.Three-dimensional simulation of ultrasound propagation through trabecular bone structures measured by synchrotron microtomography. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:5545-56.
36.
AulaASToyrasJHakulinenMJurvelinJS.Effect of bone marrow on acoustic properties of trabecular bone—3D finite difference modeling study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:308-18.
37.
ToyrasJNieminenMTKrogerHJurvelinJS.Bone mineral density, ultrasound velocity, and broadband attenuation predict mechanical properties of trabecular bone differently. Bone. 2002;31:503-7.
38.
HulmePABoydSKFergusonSJ.Regional variation in vertebral bone morphology and its contribution to vertebral fracture strength. Bone. 2007;41:946-57.
39.
PeyrinFMullerCCarillonYNuzzoSBonnassieABriguetA.Synchrotron Radiation μCT : A Refecence Tool for the Characterization of Bone Samples, Noninvasive Assessment of Trabecular Bone Architecture and the Competence of Bone. New York: Springer;2001. pp. 129-42.
40.
MizunoKMatsukawaMOtaniTLaugierPPadillaF.Propagation of two longitudinal waves in human cancellous bone: an in vitro study. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125:3460-6.
41.
BlandJMAltmanDG.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307-10.
42.
PadillaFBossyEHaïatGJensonFLaugierP.Numerical simulation of wave propagation in cancellous bone. Ultrasonics. 2006;44:e239-43.
43.
BossyELaugierPPeyrinFPadillaF.Attenuation in trabecular bone: a comparison between numerical simulation and experimental results in human femur. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122:2469-75.
44.
ChengJSerra-HsuFTianYLinWQinYX.Effects of phase cancellation and receiver aperture size on broadband ultrasonic attenuation for trabecular bone in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37:2116-25.
45.
HaïatGLhémeryARenaudRPadillaFLaugierPNailiS.Velocity dispersion in trabecular bone: influence of multiple scattering and of absorption. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124:4047-58.
46.
PakulaMPadillaFLaugierP. Influence of the filling fluid on frequency-dependent velocity and attenuation in cancellous bones between 0.35 and 2.5 MHz. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126:3301-10.
47.
HaïatGPadillaFLaugierP.Fast wave ultrasonic propagation in trabecular bone: numerical study of the influence of porosity and structural anisotropy. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123:1694-705.
48.
HaïatGNailiS.Independent scattering model and velocity dispersion in trabecular bone. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2011;10:95-108.
49.
HasegawaSNagataniYMizunoKMatsukawaM.Wavelet transform analysis of ultrasonic wave propagation in cancellous bone. Jpn J Appl Phys. 2010;49:07HF28.
50.
LuppéFConoirJMFranklinH.Multiple scattering in a trabecular bone: influence of the marrow viscosity on the effective properties. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113:2889-92.
51.
LeeKIYoonSW.Comparison of acoustic characteristics predicted by Biot’s theory and the modified Biot-Attenborough model in cancellous bone. J Biomech. 2006;39:364-8.
52.
RoyerDDieulesaintE.Elastic Waves in Solids I: Free and Guided Propagation. Berlin: Springer;2000. pp 1-374.
53.
GrayDE, ed. American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. pp 3-78.
