STUDY DESIGN: A finite-element study to investigate the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture and the distribution of load between trabecular core and cortical shell, for healthy, osteopenic, and osteoporotic vertebrae. OBJECTIVES: To determine differences between healthy, osteopenic, and osteoporotic vertebrae with regard to the risk of fracture and the load distribution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature contains no reports on the effects of osteopenia and osteoporosis on load distribution in vertebral bodies, nor any reports on the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture. METHODS: Computed tomography data of vertebral bodies were used to construct patient-specific finite-element models. These models were then used in finite-element analyses to determine the physiologic stresses and strains in the vertebrae. RESULTS: For all three classes of vertebrae the contribution of the trabecular core to the total load transfer decreased from about 70% near the endplates to about 50% in the midtransverse region. The amount of trabecular bone that is at risk of fracture was about 1% for healthy vertebrae, about 3% for osteopenic vertebrae, and about 16% for osteoporotic vertebrae. CONCLUSIONS: Our finite-element models indicated that neither osteopenia nor osteoporosis had any effect on the contribution of the trabecular core to the total load placed on the vertebra. The trabecular core carried about half the load. Our finite-element models indicated that osteoporosis had a significant effect on the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture, which increased from about 1% in healthy vertebrae to about 16% for osteoporotic vertebrae.
STUDY DESIGN: A finite-element study to investigate the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture and the distribution of load between trabecular core and cortical shell, for healthy, osteopenic, and osteoporotic vertebrae. OBJECTIVES: To determine differences between healthy, osteopenic, and osteoporotic vertebrae with regard to the risk of fracture and the load distribution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature contains no reports on the effects of osteopenia and osteoporosis on load distribution in vertebral bodies, nor any reports on the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture. METHODS: Computed tomography data of vertebral bodies were used to construct patient-specific finite-element models. These models were then used in finite-element analyses to determine the physiologic stresses and strains in the vertebrae. RESULTS: For all three classes of vertebrae the contribution of the trabecular core to the total load transfer decreased from about 70% near the endplates to about 50% in the midtransverse region. The amount of trabecular bone that is at risk of fracture was about 1% for healthy vertebrae, about 3% for osteopenic vertebrae, and about 16% for osteoporotic vertebrae. CONCLUSIONS: Our finite-element models indicated that neither osteopenia nor osteoporosis had any effect on the contribution of the trabecular core to the total load placed on the vertebra. The trabecular core carried about half the load. Our finite-element models indicated that osteoporosis had a significant effect on the amount of trabecular bone at risk of fracture, which increased from about 1% in healthy vertebrae to about 16% for osteoporotic vertebrae.
Authors: Hugo Giambini; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Paul M Huddleston; Jon J Camp; Kai-Nan An; Ahmad Nassr Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Oran D Kennedy; Orlaith Brennan; Susan M Rackard; Fergal J O'Brien; David Taylor; T Clive Lee Journal: J Anat Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Ginu U Unnikrishnan; Glenn D Barest; David B Berry; Amira I Hussein; Elise F Morgan Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Andrew M Briggs; Egon Perilli; Ian H Parkinson; Susan Kantor; Tim V Wrigley; Nicola L Fazzalari; John D Wark Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: Senthil K Eswaran; Grant Bevill; Prem Nagarathnam; Matthew R Allen; David B Burr; Tony M Keaveny Journal: J Biomech Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 2.712