Literature DB >> 28940110

Are DXA/aBMD and QCT/FEA Stiffness and Strength Estimates Sensitive to Sex and Age?

Asghar Rezaei1, Hugo Giambini2, Timothy Rossman3, Kent D Carlson1, Michael J Yaszemski2, Lichun Lu1, Dan Dragomir-Daescu4.   

Abstract

Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measures areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by simplifying a complex 3D bone structure to a 2D projection and is not equally effective for explaining fracture strength in women and men. Unlike DXA, subject-specific quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis (QCT/FEA) estimates fracture strength using 3D bone mineral distribution and geometry. By using experimentally-measured femoral stiffness and strength from a one hundred sample cadaveric cohort that included variations in sex and age, we wanted to determine if QCT/FEA estimates were able to better predict the experimental variations than DXA/aBMD. For each femur, DXA/aBMD was assessed and a QCT/FEA model was developed to estimate femoral stiffness and strength. Then, the femur was mechanically tested to fracture in a sideways fall on the hip position to measure stiffness and strength. DXA/aBMD and QCT/FEA estimates were compared for their sensitivity to sex and age with multivariate statistical analyses. When comparing the measured data with DXA/aBMD predictions, both age and sex were significant (p ≤ 0.0398) for both femoral stiffness and strength. However, QCT/FEA predictions of stiffness and strength showed sex was insignificant (p ≥ 0.23). Age was still significant (p ≤ 0.0072). These results indicate that QCT/FEA, unlike DXA/aBMD, accounted for bone differences due to sex.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aging; Bone biomechanics; Finite element analysis; Hip fracture; Sex differences

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28940110      PMCID: PMC5890422          DOI: 10.1007/s10439-017-1914-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0090-6964            Impact factor:   3.934


  30 in total

1.  Prediction of femoral fracture load using finite element models: an examination of stress- and strain-based failure theories.

Authors:  J H Keyak; S A Rossi
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Regional variation of intracortical porosity in the midshaft of the human femur: age and sex differences.

Authors:  C David L Thomas; Sophie A Feik; John G Clement
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 3.  Bone microdamage, remodeling and bone fragility: how much damage is too much damage?

Authors:  Zeynep Seref-Ferlengez; Oran D Kennedy; Mitchell B Schaffler
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2015-03-18

4.  The diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; L J Melton; C Christiansen; C C Johnston; N Khaltaev
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Distribution of intracortical porosity in human midfemoral cortex by age and gender.

Authors:  V Bousson; A Meunier; C Bergot; E Vicaut; M A Rocha; M H Morais; A M Laval-Jeantet; J D Laredo
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Proximal femur elastic behaviour is the same in impact and constant displacement rate fall simulation.

Authors:  S Gilchrist; K K Nishiyama; P de Bakker; P Guy; S K Boyd; T Oxland; P A Cripton
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models.

Authors:  Joyce H Keyak; Tadashi S Kaneko; Jamshid Tehranzadeh; Harry B Skinner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  The assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  Aasis Unnanuntana; Brian P Gladnick; Eve Donnelly; Joseph M Lane
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Regional variations of vertebral trabecular bone microstructure with age and gender.

Authors:  H Chen; S Shoumura; S Emura; Y Bunai
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 10.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

1.  Optimizing Accuracy of Proximal Femur Elastic Modulus Equations.

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Kent D Carlson; Hugo Giambini; Samad Javid; Dan Dragomir-Daescu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  Factors associated with proximal femur fracture determined in a large cadaveric cohort.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Timothy L Rossman; Asghar Rezaei; Kent D Carlson; David F Kallmes; John A Skinner; Sundeep Khosla; Shreyasee Amin
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Single-level subject-specific finite element model can predict fracture outcomes in three-level spine segments under different loading rates.

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Maryam Tilton; Yong Li; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 6.698

4.  Triglyceride Can Predict the Discordance between QCT and DXA Screening for BMD in Old Female Patients.

Authors:  Dongjiang Xu; Ke di Wang; Jianhong Yang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2020-12-27       Impact factor: 3.434

5.  Mechanical metric for skeletal biomechanics derived from spectral analysis of stiffness matrix.

Authors:  Petr Henyš; Michal Kuchař; Petr Hájek; Niels Hammer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.