Literature DB >> 25442008

Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis predictions of femoral strength and stiffness depend on computed tomography settings.

Dan Dragomir-Daescu1, Christina Salas2, Susheil Uthamaraj3, Timothy Rossman3.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare proximal femur strength and stiffness obtained experimentally with estimations from Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models derived from Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) scans acquired at two different scanner settings. QCT/FEA models could potentially aid in diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis but several drawbacks still limit their predictive ability. One potential reason is that the models are still sensitive to scanner settings which could lead to changes in assigned material properties, thus limiting their results accuracy and clinical effectiveness. To find the mechanical properties we fracture tested 44 proximal femora in a sideways fall-on-the-hip configuration. Before testing, we CT scanned all femora twice, first at high resolution scanner settings, and second at low resolution scanner settings and built 88 QCT/FEA models of femoral strength and stiffness. The femoral set neck bone mineral density, as measured by DXA, uniformly covered the range from osteoporotic to normal. This study showed that the femoral strength and stiffness values predicted from high and low resolution scans were significantly different (p<0.0001). Strength estimated from high resolution QCT scans was larger for osteoporotic, but smaller for normal and osteopenic femora when compared to low resolution scans. In addition, stiffness estimated from high resolution scans was consistently larger than stiffness obtained from low resolution scans over the entire femoral dataset. While QCT/FEA techniques hold promise for use in clinical settings we provided evidence that further improvements are required to increase robustness in their predictive power under different scanner settings and modeling assumptions.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT resolution; Femur fracture; Finite Element Analysis; Osteoporosis; Quantitative Computed Tomography

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25442008      PMCID: PMC4291173          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.09.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  31 in total

Review 1.  Advanced imaging of bone macro and micro structure.

Authors:  H K Genant; C Gordon; Y Jiang; T F Lang; T M Link; S Majumdar
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site.

Authors:  Elise F Morgan; Harun H Bayraktar; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs.

Authors:  M Viceconti; L Bellingeri; L Cristofolini; A Toni
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.242

4.  Relationships of clinical protocols and reconstruction kernels with image quality and radiation dose in a 128-slice CT scanner: study with an anthropomorphic and water phantom.

Authors:  Jijo Paul; B Krauss; R Banckwitz; W Maentele; R W Bauer; T J Vogl
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Improved prediction of proximal femoral fracture load using nonlinear finite element models.

Authors:  J H Keyak
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.242

6.  Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study.

Authors:  J R Center; T V Nguyen; D Schneider; P N Sambrook; J A Eisman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-03-13       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA.

Authors:  D D Cody; G J Gross; F J Hou; H J Spencer; S A Goldstein; D P Fyhrie
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Automatic generation of accurate subject-specific bone finite element models to be used in clinical studies.

Authors:  Marco Viceconti; Mario Davinelli; Fulvia Taddei; Angelo Cappello
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Age-related reductions in the strength of the femur tested in a fall-loading configuration.

Authors:  A C Courtney; E F Wachtel; E R Myers; W C Hayes
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; C De Laet; H Johansson; A Oden; P Delmas; J Eisman; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; H Kroger; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.398

View more
  14 in total

1.  The Effect of Quantitative Computed Tomography Acquisition Protocols on Bone Mineral Density Estimation.

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

Review 2.  Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Functional electrical stimulation (FES)-assisted rowing combined with zoledronic acid, but not alone, preserves distal femur strength and stiffness in people with chronic spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Y Fang; L R Morse; N Nguyen; R A Battaglino; R F Goldstein; K L Troy
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Automated DXA-based finite element analysis for hip fracture risk stratification: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  S Yang; W D Leslie; Y Luo; A L Goertzen; S Ahmed; L M Ward; I Delubac; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Additive Manufacturing: The Next Generation of Scapholunate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Matthew N Rush; Christina Salas; Lorraine Mottishaw; Damian Fountain; Deana Mercer
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2021-06-21

6.  Noninvasive Failure Load Prediction of Vertebrae with Simulated Lytic Defects and Biomaterial Augmentation.

Authors:  Hugo Giambini; Zhong Fang; Heng Zeng; Jon J Camp; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.056

7.  Quantitative Computed Tomography Protocols Affect Material Mapping and Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite-Element Analysis Predicted Stiffness.

Authors:  Hugo Giambini; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Ahmad Nassr; Michael J Yaszemski; Chunfeng Zhao
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 2.097

8.  Does Orthodontic Treatment Affect the Alveolar Bone Density?

Authors:  Jian-Hong Yu; Heng-Li Huang; Chien-Feng Liu; Jay Wu; Yu-Fen Li; Ming-Tzu Tsai; Jui-Ting Hsu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Effects of Scan Resolutions and Element Sizes on Bovine Vertebral Mechanical Parameters from Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Meng Zhang; Jiazi Gao; Xu Huang; He Gong; Min Zhang; Bei Liu
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.682

10.  Prediction of fracture load and stiffness of the proximal femur by CT-based specimen specific finite element analysis: cadaveric validation study.

Authors:  Michiaki Miura; Junichi Nakamura; Yusuke Matsuura; Yasushi Wako; Takane Suzuki; Shigeo Hagiwara; Sumihisa Orita; Kazuhide Inage; Yuya Kawarai; Masahiko Sugano; Kento Nawata; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.