Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2018, Article ID 6284269, 8 pages
Research Article

Quantification of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femurs Using a Two-Compartment Model and Computed Tomography Images

1Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 11221, Taiwan
2Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan
3School of Dentistry, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 40402, Taiwan
4Department of Radiology, Cheng Ching Hospital, Chung Kang Branch, Taichung 40764, Taiwan
5Department of Radiology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan

Correspondence should be addressed to Jay Wu; moc.liamg@uwyajmai

Received 20 September 2017; Revised 21 January 2018; Accepted 31 January 2018; Published 27 February 2018

Academic Editor: Magali Cucchiarini

Copyright © 2018 Yan-Lin Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Objectives. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is frequently used to measure the areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in clinical practice. However, DXA measurements are affected by the bone thickness and the body size and are unable to indicate nonosseous areas within the trabecular bone. This study aims to quantify the volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) using computed tomography (CT) images and the two-compartment model (TCM) methods. Methods. The TCM method was proposed and validated by dipotassium phosphate (K2HPO4) phantoms and a standard forearm phantom. 28 cases with DXA scans and pelvic CT scans acquired within six months were retrospectively collected. The vBMD calculated by TCM was compared with the aBMD obtained from DXA. Results. For the K2HPO4 phantoms with vBMD ranging from 0.135 to 0.467 g/cm3, the average difference between the real and calculated vBMD was 0.009 g/cm3 and the maximum difference was 0.019 g/cm3. For the standard forearm phantom with vBMD of 0.194, 0.103, and 0.054 g/cm3, the average differences between the real and calculated vBMD were 0.017, 0.014, and 0.011 g/cm3. In the clinical CT image validation, a good linear relationship between vBMD and aBMD was observed with the Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.920 (). Conclusions. The proposed TCM method in combination with the homemade cortical bone equivalent phantom provides accurate quantification and spatial distribution of bone mineral content.