| Literature DB >> 30201250 |
Danielle E Whittier1, Sarah L Manske1, Douglas P Kiel2, Mary Bouxsein3, Steven K Boyd4.
Abstract
The finite element (FE) method based on high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) use a variety of tissue constitutive properties and boundary conditions at different laboratories making comparison of mechanical properties difficult. Furthermore, the advent of a second-generation HR-pQCT poses challenges due to improved resolution and a larger region of interest (ROI). This study addresses the need to harmonize results across FE models. The aims are to establish the relationship between FE results as a function of boundary conditions and a range of tissue properties for the first-generation HR-pQCT system, and to determine appropriate model parameters for the second-generation HR-pQCT system. We implemented common boundary conditions and tissue properties on a large cohort (N = 1371), and showed the relationships were highly linear (R2 > 0.99) for yield strength and reaction force between FE models. Cadaver radii measured on both generation HR-pQCT with matched ROIs were used to back-calculate a tissue modulus that accounts for the increased resolution (61 µm versus 82 µm), resulting in a modulus of 8748 MPa for second-generation HR-pQCT to produce bone yield strength and reaction force equivalent to using 6829 MPa for first-generation HR-pQCT. Finally, in vivo scans (N = 61) conducted on both generations demonstrated that the larger ROI in the second-generation system results in stronger bone outcome measures, suggesting it is not advisable to convert FE results across HR-pQCT generations without matching ROIs. Together, these findings harmonize FE results by providing a means to compare findings with different boundary conditions and tissue properties, and across scanner generations.Entities:
Keywords: Bone microarchitecture; Bone mineral density; Bone strength; Finite element analysis; High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; Micro-FE
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30201250 PMCID: PMC6188787 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.08.030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomech ISSN: 0021-9290 Impact factor: 2.712