| Literature DB >> 29545839 |
Daisuke Nakashima1, Tsukasa Kanchiku1, Norihiro Nishida1, Saki Ito2, Junji Ohgi2, Hidenori Suzuki1, Yasuaki Imajo1, Masahiro Funaba1, Xian Chen2, Toshihiko Taguchi1.
Abstract
Vertebral fractures commonly occur at the thoracolumbar junction. These fractures can be treated with mild residual deformity in many cases, but are reportedly associated with increased risk of secondary vertebral fractures. In the present study, a three-dimensional (3D) whole spine model was constructed using the finite element method to explore the mechanism of development of compression fractures. The 3D model of the whole spine, from the cervical spine to the pelvis, was constructed from computed tomography (CT) images of an adult male. Using a normal spine model and spine models with compression fractures at the T11, T12 or L1 vertebrae, the distribution of strain was analyzed in the vertebrae after load application. The normal spine model demonstrated greater strain around the thoracolumbar junction and the middle thoracic spine, while the compression fracture models indicated focused strain at the fracture site and adjacent vertebrae. Increased load time resulted in the extension of the strain region up to the middle thoracic spine. The present findings, that secondary vertebral fractures commonly occur around the fracture site, and may also affect the thoracic vertebrae, are consistent with previous clinical and experimental results. These results suggest that follow-up examinations of compression fractures at the thoracolumbar junction should include the thoracic spine and adjacent vertebrae. The current data also demonstrate that models created from CT images can be used for various analyses.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; finite element method; secondary vertebral fracture; spinal compression fracture; thoracolumbar junction
Year: 2018 PMID: 29545839 PMCID: PMC5841061 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2018.5848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1.Normal model construction. (A) Cortical bone, (B) cancellous bone and (C) intervertebral discs were mapped from computed tomography images.
Figure 2.Compression model construction. (A) The T11 10° compression fracture model was created by trimming the cranial and caudal surfaces of the T11 vertebrae by 5° each. (B) The T11 20° compression fracture model was created by trimming the cranial and caudal surfaces of the T11 vertebrae by 10° each.
Figure 3.Computer model of load application after 0.004 sec. (A) Normal spine model. (B) T11 10° compression fracture model. (C) T11 20° compression fracture model. (D) T12 10° compression fracture model. (E) T12 20° compression fracture model. (F) L1 10° compression fracture model. (G) L1 20° compression fracture model.
Figure 4.Computer model of load application after 0.01 sec. (A) Normal spine model. (B) T11 10° compression fracture model. (C) T11 20° compression fracture model. (D) T12 10° compression fracture model. (E) T12 20° compression fracture model. (F) L1 10° compression fracture model. (G) L1 20° compression fracture model.
Figure 5.Minimum principal strain after 0.004 sec. (A) Normal spine model. (B) T11 10° compression fracture model. (C) T11 20° compression fracture model. (D) T12 10° compression fracture model. (E) T12 20° compression fracture model. (F) L1 10° compression fracture model. (G) L1 20° compression fracture model.
Figure 6.Minimum principal strain after 0.01 sec. (A) Normal spine model. (B) T11 10° compression fracture model. (C) T11 20° compression fracture model. (D) T12 10° compression fracture model. (E) T12 20° compression fracture model. (F) L1 10° compression fracture model. (G) L1 20° compression fracture model.