The ultrasonic backscatter technique holds the promise of characterizing bone density and microstructure. This paper conducts ultrasonic backscatter parametric imaging based on measurements of apparent integrated backscatter (AIB), spectral centroid shift (SCS), frequency slope of apparent backscatter (FSAB), and frequency intercept of apparent backscatter (FIAB) for representing trabecular bone mass and microstructure. We scanned 33 bovine trabecular bone samples using a 7.5 MHz focused transducer in a 20 mm × 20 mm region of interest (ROI) with a step interval of 0.05 mm. Images based on the ultrasonic backscatter parameters (i.e., AIB, SCS, FSAB, and FIAB) were constructed to compare with photographic images of the specimens as well as two-dimensional (2D) μ-CT images from approximately the same depth and location of the specimen. Similar structures and trabecular alignments can be observed among these images. Statistical analyses demonstrated that the means and standard deviations of the ultrasonic backscatter parameters exhibited significant correlations with bone density (|R| = 0.45-0.78, p < 0.01) and bone microstructure (|R| = 0.44-0.87, p < 0.001). Some bovine trabecular bone microstructure parameters were independently associated with the ultrasonic backscatter parameters (ΔR2 = 4.18%-44.45%, p < 0.05) after adjustment for bone apparent density (BAD). The results show that ultrasonic backscatter parametric imaging can provide a direct view of the trabecular microstructure and can reflect information about the density and microstructure of trabecular bone.
SiffertRSKauftnanJJ. Ultrasonic bone assessment: “the time has come.” Bone. 2007;40(1):5-8.
2.
GriffithJFEngelkeKGenantHK. Looking beyond bone mineral density: imaging assessment of bone quality. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1192(1):45-56.
3.
BrandiML. Microarchitecture, the key to bone quality. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48(Suppl. 4):iv3-8.
4.
ReginsterJYBurletN. Osteoporosis: a still increasing prevalence. Bone. 2006;38(2, Suppl. 1):S4-9.
5.
OdenAMcCloskeyEVKanisJAHarveyNCJohanssonH. Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: secular increases 2010-2040. Osteoporosis Int. 2015;26(9):2243-8.
6.
KanisJAMcCloskeyEVJohanssonHOdenAMeltonLJKhaltaevN. A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone. 2008;42(3):467-75.
7.
HoffmeisterBKJonesCICaldwellGJKasteSC. Ultrasonic characterization of cancellous bone using apparent integrated backscatter. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(11):2715-27.
8.
WearKANagarajaSDreherMLSadoughiSZhuSKeavenyTM. Relationships among ultrasonic and mechanical properties of cancellous bone in human calcaneus in vitro. Bone. 2017;103:93-101.
9.
LaugierP. Instrumentation for in vivo ultrasonic characterization of bone strength. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2008;55(6):1179-96.
10.
MoilanenP. Ultrasonic guided waves in bone. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2008;55(6):1277-86.
11.
NicholsonPHFMoilanenPKarkkainenTTimonenJChengSL. Guided ultrasonic waves in long bones: modelling, experiment and in vivo application. Physiol Meas. 2002;23(4):755-68.
12.
WearKA. Ultrasonic scattering from cancellous bone: a review. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55(7):1432-41.
13.
KarjalainenJPRiekkinenOToyrasJHakulinenMKrogerHRikkonenT, et al. Multi-site bone ultrasound measurements in elderly women with and without previous hip fractures. Osteoporosis Int. 2012;23(4):1287-95.
14.
GarraBSLocherMFelkerSWearKA. Measurements of ultrasonic backscattered spectral centroid shift from spine in vivo: methodology and preliminary results. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(1):165-8.
15.
WearKAArmstrongDW. The relationship between ultrasonic backscatter and bone mineral density in human calcaneus. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2000;47(4):777-80.
16.
ZhouZWuWWuSJiaKTsuiPH. A review of ultrasound tissue characterization with mean scatterer spacing. Ultrason Imaging. 2017;39(5):263-82.
17.
PadillaFJensonFLaugierP. Estimation of trabecular thickness using ultrasonic backscatter. Ultrason Imaging. 2006;28(1):3-22.
18.
WearKA. Frequency dependence of ultrasonic backscatter from human trabecular bone: theory and experiment. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(6):3659-64.
19.
WearKAWagnerRFInsanaMFHallTJ. Application of autoregressive spectral-analysis to cepstral estimation of mean scatterer spacing. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 1993;40(1):50-58.
20.
HakulinenMADayJSTöyräsJTimonenMKrögerHWeinansH, et al. Prediction of density and mechanical properties of human trabecular bone in vitro by using ultrasound transmission and backscattering measurements at 0.2-6.7 MHz frequency range. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(8):1629-42.
21.
HoffmeisterBKJohnsonDPJaneskiJAKeedyDASteinertBWVianoAM, et al. Ultrasonic characterization of human cancellous bone in vitro using three different apparent backscatter parameters in the frequency range 0.6-15.0 MHz. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2008;55(7):1442-52.
22.
KazakiaGJMajumdarS. New imaging technologies in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Rev Endocr Metab Dis. 2006;7(1-2):67-74.
23.
XiaYLinWQinYX. Bone surface topology mapping and its role in trabecular bone quality assessment using scanning confocal ultrasound. Osteoporosis Int. 2007;18(7):905-13.
24.
LaugierPBergerGGiatPBonninfayetPLaval-JeantetM. Ultrasound attenuation imaging in the os calcis: an improved method. Ultrason Imaging. 1994;16(2):65-76.
25.
LaugierPFournierBBergerG. Ultrasound parametric imaging of the calcaneus: in vivo results with a new device. Calcified Tissue Int. 1996;58(5):326-31.
26.
RouxCFournierBLaugierPChappardCKoltaSDougadosM, et al. Broadband ultrasound attenuation imaging: a new imaging method in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1996;11(8):1112-8.
27.
ChappardCLaugierPFournierBRouxCBergerG. Assessment of the relationship between broadband ultrasound attenuation and bone mineral density at the calcaneus using BUA imaging and DXA. Osteoporosis Int. 1997;7(4):316-22.
28.
LefebvreFBergerGLaugierP. Automatic detection of the boundary of the calcaneus from ultrasound parametric images using an active contour model; clinical assessment. IEEE T Med Imaging. 1998;17(1):45-52.
29.
FournierBChappardCRouxCBergerGLaugierP. Quantitative ultrasound imaging at the calcaneus using an automatic region of interest. Osteoporosis Int. 1997;7(4):363-9.
30.
RaumKClevelandROPeyrinFLaugierP. Derivation of elastic stiffness from site-matched mineral density and acoustic impedance maps. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(3):747-58.
31.
RaumKReisshauerJBrandtJ. Frequency and resolution dependence of the anisotropic impedance estimation in cortical bone using time-resolved scanning acoustic microscopy. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;71a(3):430-8.
32.
RaumK. Microelastic imaging of bone. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2008;55(7):1417-31.
33.
RaumKGrimalQVargaPBarkmannRGluerCCLaugierP. Ultrasound to assess bone quality. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2014;12(2):154-62.
34.
RiekkinenOHakulinenMAToyrasJJurvelinJS. Spatial variation of acoustic properties is related with mechanical properties of trabecular bone. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(23):6961-8.
35.
KarjalainenJPToyrasJRiekkinenOHakulinenMJurvelinJS. Ultrasound backscatter imaging provides frequency-dependent information on structure, composition and mechanical properties of human trabecular bone. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(8):1376-84.
36.
LaugierPDroinPLaval-JeantetAMBergerG. In vitro assessment of the relationship between acoustic properties and bone mass density of the calcaneus by comparison of ultrasound parametric imaging and quantitative computed tomography. Bone. 1997;20(2):157-65.
HoffmeisterBKMcPhersonJASmathersMRSpinoloPLSellersME. Ultrasonic backscatter from cancellous bone: the apparent backscatter transfer function. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2015;62(12):2115-25.
39.
HoffmeisterBK. Frequency dependence of apparent ultrasonic backscatter from human cancellous bone. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(3):667-83.
40.
HakulinenMADayJSToyrasJWeinansHJurvelinJS. Ultrasonic characterization of human trabecular bone microstructure. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(6):1633-48.
41.
WearKA. Characterization of trabecular bone using the backscattered spectral centroid shift. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr. 2003;50(4):402-7.
42.
FryFBargerJ. Acoustical properties of the human skull. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;63(5):1576-90.
43.
NicholsonPHFMullerRLowetGChengXGHildebrandTRuegseggerP, et al. Do quantitative ultrasound measurements reflect structure independently of density in human vertebral cancellous bone?Bone. 1998;23(5):425-31.
44.
PeccarisiMDe MarcoTConversanoFPisaniPSpedicatoLGrecoA, et al. In-vitro study of human proximal femur microstructure: analysis of the relationship between micro-computed tomography data and quantitative ultrasound parameters. IET Sci Measurement Technol. 2016;10(3):193-9.
45.
LiuCTangTXuFTaDMatsukawaMHuB, et al. Signal of interest selection standard for ultrasonic backscatter in cancellous bone evaluation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(10):2714-21.
46.
LiuCCZhangRLiYXuFTaDWangWQ. An ultrasonic backscatter instrument for cancellous bone evaluation in neonates. Engineering. 2015;1(3):336-43.
47.
HoffmeisterBKVianoAMFairbanksLCEbronSCMcPhersonJAHuberMT. Effect of gate choice on backscatter difference measurements of cancellous bone. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(2):540.
48.
LiYLiBYXuFLiuCCTaDWangWQ. Ultrasonic backscatter measurements at the calcaneus: an in vivo study. Measurement. 2018;122:128-34.
49.
PintonGAubryJFBossyEMullerMPernotMTanterM. Attenuation, scattering, and absorption of ultrasound in the skull bone. Med Phys. 2012;39(1):299-307.
50.
WuC-YGlüerC-CJergasMBendavidEGenantH. The impact of bone size on broadband ultrasound attenuation. Bone. 1995;16(1):137-41.
51.
HaiatGLhemeryARenaudFPadillaFLaugierPNailiS. Velocity dispersion in trabecular bone: influence of multiple scattering and of absorption. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124(6):4047-58.
52.
DavignonFDeprezJFBassetO. A parametric imaging approach for the segmentation of ultrasound data. Ultrasonics. 2005;43(10):789-801.
53.
LiYLiuCXuFTaD. Microstructure characterization of cancellous bone based on ultrasonic C-scan imaging. In: Vo VanTLeTANDucTN, eds. International Conference on the Development of Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam. New York: Springer; 2017. pp. 1-5.
54.
RiekkinenOHakulinenMATimonenMToyrasJJurvelinJS. Influence of overlying soft tissues on trabecular bone acoustic measurement at various ultrasound frequencies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32(7):1073-83.
55.
HoffmeisterBKSpinoloPLSellersMEMarshallPLVianoAMLeeSR. Effect of intervening tissues on ultrasonic backscatter measurements of bone: an in vitro study. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;138(4):2449-57.
56.
LiuCCTaDHuBLeLHWangWQ. The analysis and compensation of cortical thickness effect on ultrasonic backscatter signals in cancellous bone. J Appl Phys. 2014;116(12):124903.
