Literature DB >> 9664280

A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs.

M Viceconti1, L Bellingeri, L Cristofolini, A Toni.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate comparatively five methods for automating mesh generation (AMG) when used to mesh a human femur. The five AMG methods considered were: mapped mesh, which provides hexahedral elements through a direct mapping of the element onto the geometry; tetra mesh, which generates tetrahedral elements from a solid model of the object geometry; voxel mesh which builds cubic 8-node elements directly from CT images; and hexa mesh that automatically generated hexahedral elements from a surface definition of the femur geometry. The various methods were tested against two reference models: a simplified geometric model and a proximal femur model. The first model was useful to assess the inherent accuracy of the meshes created by the AMG methods, since an analytical solution was available for the elastic problem of the simplified geometric model. The femur model was used to test the AMG methods in a more realistic condition. The femoral geometry was derived from a reference model (the "standardized femur") and the finite element analyses predictions were compared to experimental measurements. All methods were evaluated in terms of human and computer effort needed to carry out the complete analysis, and in terms of accuracy. The comparison demonstrated that each tested method deserves attention and may be the best for specific situations. The mapped AMG method requires a significant human effort but is very accurate and it allows a tight control of the mesh structure. The tetra AMG method requires a solid model of the object to be analysed but is widely available and accurate. The hexa AMG method requires a significant computer effort but can also be used on polygonal models and is very accurate. The voxel AMG method requires a huge number of elements to reach an accuracy comparable to that of the other methods, but it does not require any pre-processing of the CT dataset to extract the geometry and in some cases may be the only viable solution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9664280     DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(97)00049-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  15 in total

1.  Effect of ACL reconstruction tunnels on stress in the distal femur.

Authors:  P Smolinski; M O'Farrell; K Bell; L Gilbertson; F H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The effects of femoral neck cut, cable tension, and muscles forces on the greater trochanter fixation.

Authors:  Yvan Petit; Luc P Cloutier; Kajsa Duke; G Yves Laflamme
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  An experimentally validated micromechanical model of a rat vertebra under compressive loading.

Authors:  Naomi Tsafnat; Stephen Wroe
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 4.  Finite Element-Based Mechanical Assessment of Bone Quality on the Basis of In Vivo Images.

Authors:  Dieter H Pahr; Philippe K Zysset
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.096

5.  Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis predictions of femoral strength and stiffness depend on computed tomography settings.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Christina Salas; Susheil Uthamaraj; Timothy Rossman
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Prediction of lumbar vertebral body compressive strength of overweight and obese older adults using morphed subject-specific finite-element models to evaluate the effects of weight loss.

Authors:  Samantha L Schoell; Kristen M Beavers; Daniel P Beavers; Leon Lenchik; Anthony P Marsh; W Jack Rejeski; Joel D Stitzel; Ashley A Weaver
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.636

7.  IA-FEMesh: an open-source, interactive, multiblock approach to anatomic finite element model development.

Authors:  Nicole M Grosland; Kiran H Shivanna; Vincent A Magnotta; Nicole A Kallemeyn; Nicole A DeVries; Srinivas C Tadepalli; Curtis Lisle
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Finite element analysis of osteosynthesis screw fixation in the bone stock: an appropriate method for automatic screw modelling.

Authors:  Jan Wieding; Robert Souffrant; Andreas Fritsche; Wolfram Mittelmeier; Rainer Bader
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Sensitivity of the stress field of the proximal femur predicted by CT-based FE analysis to modeling uncertainties.

Authors:  Sina Youssefian; Jarred A Bressner; Mikhail Osanov; James K Guest; Wojciech B Zbijewski; Adam S Levin
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 3.102

10.  ImageParser: a tool for finite element generation from three-dimensional medical images.

Authors:  H M Yin; L Z Sun; G Wang; T Yamada; J Wang; M W Vannier
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.