Literature DB >> 27454865

Assessment of Bone Fragility in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Using QCT-Based Finite Element Modeling.

Graeme M Campbell1,2, Jaime A Peña1, Sarah Giravent1, Felix Thomsen3, Timo Damm1, Claus-C Glüer1, Jan Borggrefe1,4.   

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disease associated with severe bone destruction. Surgical intervention is often required to prevent vertebral body collapse and resulting neurological complications; however, its necessity is determined by measuring lesion size or number, without considering bone biomechanics. Finite element (FE) modeling, which simulates the physiological loading, may improve the prediction of fragility. To test this, we developed a quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based FE model of the vertebra and applied it to a dataset of MM patients with and without prevalent fracture. FE models were generated from vertebral QCT scans of the T12 (T11 if T12 was fractured) of 104 MM patients, 45 with fracture and 59 without, using a low-dose scan protocol (1.5 mm slice thickness, 4.0 to 6.5 mSv effective dose). A calibration phantom enabled the conversion of the CT Hounsfield units to FE material properties. Compressive loading of the vertebral body was simulated and the stiffness, yield load, and work to yield determined. To compare the parameters between fracture and nonfracture groups, t tests were used, and standardized odds ratios (sOR, normalized to standard deviation) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. FE parameters were compared to mineral and structural parameters using linear regression. Patients with fracture showed lower vertebral stiffness (-15.2%; p = 0.010; sOR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.70), yield force (-21.5%; p = 0.002; sOR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43), and work to yield (-27.4%; p = 0.001; sOR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.92) compared to nonfracture patients. All parameters correlated significantly with vBMD (stiffness: R2  = 0.57, yield force: R2  = 0.59, work to yield: R2  = 0.50, p < 0.001), BV/TV (stiffness: R2  = 0.56, yield force: R2  = 0.58, work to yield: R2  = 0.49, p < 0.001), and Tb.Sp (stiffness: R2  = 0.51, yield force: R2  = 0.53, work to yield: R2  = 0.45, p < 0.001). FE modeling identified MM patients with compromised mechanical integrity of the vertebra. Higher sOR values were obtained for the biomechanical compared to structural or mineral measures, suggesting that FE modeling improves fragility assessment in these patients.
© 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BIOMECHANICS; BONE QCT; PRIMARY TUMORS OF BONE AND CARTILAGE; RADIOLOGY

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27454865     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Osteolytic vs. Osteoblastic Metastatic Lesion: Computational Modeling of the Mechanical Behavior in the Human Vertebra after Screws Fixation Procedure.

Authors:  Daniele Bianchi; Cristina Falcinelli; Leonardo Molinari; Alessio Gizzi; Alberto Di Martino
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Conventional finite element models estimate the strength of metastatic human vertebrae despite alterations of the bone's tissue and structure.

Authors:  Marc A Stadelmann; Denis E Schenk; Ghislain Maquer; Christopher Lenherr; Florian M Buck; Dieter D Bosshardt; Sven Hoppe; Nicolas Theumann; Ron N Alkalay; Philippe K Zysset
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 4.626

4.  Clinical Outcome and Fracture Risk Prediction of Benign Bone Tumors on the Acetabular Dome: 7-Year Clinical Experience and a Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Hongsheng Yang; Nishant Banskota; Xiang Fang; Yan Xiong; Wenli Zhang; Hong Duan
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 2.629

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.