| Literature DB >> 31311994 |
Emir Benca1, Alexander Synek2, Morteza Amini2, Franz Kainberger3, Lena Hirtler4, Reinhard Windhager5, Winfried Mayr6, Dieter H Pahr2.
Abstract
Predicting pathologic fractures in femora with metastatic lesions remains a clinical challenge. Currently used guidelines are inaccurate, especially to predict non-impeding fractures. This study evaluated the ability of a nonlinear quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based homogenized voxel finite element (hvFE) model to predict patient-specific pathologic fractures. The hvFE model was generated highly automated from QCT images of human femora. The femora were previously loaded in a one-legged stance setup in order to assess stiffness, failure load, and fracture location. One femur of each pair was tested in its intact state, while the contralateral femur included a simulated lesion on either the superolateral- or the inferomedial femoral neck. The hvFE model predictions of the stiffness (0.47 < R2 < 0.94), failure load (0.77 < R2 < 0.98), and exact fracture location (68%) were in good agreement with the experimental data. However, the model underestimated the failure load by a factor of two. The hvFE models predicted significant differences in stiffness and failure load for femora with superolateral- and inferomedial lesions. In contrast, standard clinical guidelines predicted identical fracture risk for both lesion sites. This study showed that the subject-specific QCT-based hvFE model could predict the effect of metastatic lesions on the biomechanical behaviour of the proximal femur with moderate computational time and high level of automation and could support treatment strategy in patients with metastatic bone disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31311994 PMCID: PMC6635505 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46739-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Graphical abstract of the project: Thirty-two paired femora (a) underwent QCT scanning (b) and elastic biomechanical experiments to determine stiffness (c). Based on clinical distribution in patients who suffered a pathologic fracture (d), metastatic lesions were simulated in either the superolateral or inferomedial neck in one femur of each pair (e), followed by a second QCT scan and stiffness test. All femora were then subjected to an ultimate biomechanical test to determine failure load[11] (f). A FE model was generated based on geometry and bone density distribution (BV/TV) retrieved from QCT images (g). Experimental data were used to evaluate the QCT-based FE model (h).
Figure 2QCT-based finite element model with a voxel size of 3 mm × 3 mm × 3 mm in 3D and midplanes for intact- and specimen with a simulated inferomedial lesion (from left to the right). Specimen is positioned in one-legged stance. Values of highest BV/TV are in line with the vertical force vector (grey rectangle). Destroying the cortex in this region will result in redistribution of load and premature failure.
Figure 3Results for prediction of stiffness in intact- and femora with simulated metastatic lesion in two different regions of the femoral neck. The ideal correlation (1:1 relation) is represented by the dashed line. The moderate correlation of femora with an inferomedial lesion is likely a result of a single outlier.
Figure 4Results for prediction of failure load in intact- and femora with metastatic lesion in two different regions of the femoral neck. The ideal correlation (1:1 relation) is represented by the dashed line.
Fracture locations recorded in the experiments and as predicted by the QCT-based FE model.
| Specimen | Lesion | Fracture location | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment | FE | ||
| 01R | superolateral | neck | neck |
| 01L | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 02R | superolateral | neck | neck |
| 02L | intact | subcapital | neck |
| 03R | superolateral | intertrochanteric | intertrochanteric |
| 03L | intact | intertrochanteric | subcapital |
| 04R | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 04L | superolateral | subcapital | subcapital |
| 05L | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 05R | excluded specimen | ||
| 06R | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 06L | superolateral | subcapital | subcapital |
| 07R | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 07L | superolateral | neck | neck |
| 08R | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 08L | inferomedial | subcapital | neck |
| 09R | inferomedial | neck | subcapital |
| 09L | intact | neck | subcapital |
| 10R | inferomedial | neck | neck |
| 10L | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 11R | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 11L | superolateral | neck | neck |
| 12R | inferomedial | neck | neck |
| 12L | intact | subcapital | subcapital |
| 13R | inferomedial | neck | neck |
| 13L | intact | subcapital | neck |
| 14R | inferomedial | neck | neck |
| 14L | intact | intertrochanteric | subcapital |
| 15R | intact | subcapital | neck |
| 15L | inferomedial | neck | neck |
| 17R | intact | neck | subcapital |
| 17L | inferomedial | subcapital | neck |
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient R2 between volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone mineral content (BMC), caput-collum-diaphyseal (CCD) angle, as well as failure load from simulation (FE Fu) and failure load from biomechanical experiments.
| vBMD (mg/cm3) | BMC (g) | CCD (degree) | FE Fu (kN) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intact | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.15 | 0.83 |
| Superolateral lesion | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.77 |
| Inferomedial lesion | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.14 | 0.98 |