How accurate are medical CT and micro-CT techniques compared to classical histology when addressing the growth of the internal rib parameters?

Abstract

Rib internal anatomy and its cross-sectional morphology inform about important biomechanical or even evolutionary aspects. Classic histological studies require destructive techniques that are reprehensible depending on the case (e.g., fossils). In the last years, non-destructive CT-based methods are contributing to complementing previous knowledge without damaging the bone. Even though these methods have been proved to be useful to understand adult variation, we do not know whether these methods are useful to cover ontogenetic variation. This work compares classical histological methods with medical- and micro-CT to quantify the amount of mineral area at the rib midshaft (% Min. Ar.), a proxy for bone density. We compared cross-sections from an ontogenetic sample of 14 human first ribs ranging from perinates to adults using a) classical histology, b) HD (9–17 microns) and SD micro-CT (90 microns), and c) standard medical-CT (0.66 mm). We found that all the CT-based methods provide a larger % Min. Ar. compared to the histological techniques, but the HD micro-CT resolution is the only capable of producing results comparable to classical histology (p > 0.01), with the SD micro-CT and the medical-CT producing statistically larger results compared to classical histology (p < 0.01). In addition, it is important to state that the resolution of a standard medical-CT is not high enough to differentiate between mineral and non-mineral areas of the cross-sections for perinates and infants. These results could have important implications to avoid (when necessary) destructive techniques that are not appropriate in the case of highly valuable specimens such as fossils.