Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography

被引:441
作者
Crawford, RP
Cann, CE
Keaveny, TM
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Mech Engn, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[2] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Bioengn, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Neurol Surg, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Mindways Software, San Francisco, CA USA
关键词
finite element modeling; bone mineral density; bone strength; osteoporosis; spine; biomechanics;
D O I
10.1016/S8756-3282(03)00210-2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The correlation between bone mineral density and vertebral strength is not based on mechanical principles and thus the method cannot reflect the effects of subtle geometric features and densitometric inhomogeneities that may substantially affect vertebral strength. Finite element models derived from quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans overcome such limitations. The overall goal of this study was to establish that QCT-based "voxel" finite element models are better predictors of vertebral compressive strength than QCT measures of bone mineral density with or without measures of cross-sectional area. QCT scans were taken of 13 vertebral bodies excised from 13 cadavers (L1-L4; age: 37-87 years; M = 6, F = 7) and used to calculate bone mineral density (BMDQCT). The QCT voxel data were converted into linearly elastic finite element models of each vertebra, from which measures of vertebral stiffness and strength were computed. The vertebrae were biomechanically tested in compression to measure strength. Vertebral strength was positively correlated with the finite element measures of strength (r(2) = 0.86, P < 0.0001) and stiffness (r(2) = 0.82, P < 0.0001), the product of BMDQCT and vertebral minimum cross-sectional area (r(2) = 0.65, P = 0.0008), and BMDQCT alone (r(2) = 0.53, P = 0.005). These results demonstrate that highly automated "voxel" finite element models are superior to correlation-based QCT methods in predicting vertebral compressive strength and therefore offer great promise for improvement of clinical fracture risk assessment. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:744 / 750
页数:7
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [11] A COMPARISON OF BONE DENSITOMETRY MEASUREMENTS OF THE CENTRAL SKELETON IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN WITH AND WITHOUT VERTEBRAL FRACTURE
    DUBOEUF, F
    JERGAS, M
    SCHOTT, AM
    WU, CY
    GLUER, CC
    GENANT, HK
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1995, 68 (811) : 747 - 753
  • [12] Lumbar vertebral body compressive strength evaluated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and ashing
    Ebbesen, EN
    Thomsen, JS
    Beck-Nielsen, H
    Nepper-Rasmussen, HJ
    Mosekilde, L
    [J]. BONE, 1999, 25 (06) : 713 - 724
  • [13] Ex vivo estimation of thoracolumbar vertebral body compressive strength: The relative contributions of bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry
    Edmondston, SJ
    Singer, KP
    Day, RE
    Price, RI
    Breidahl, PD
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1997, 7 (02) : 142 - 148
  • [14] EFFECT OF BONE DISTRIBUTION ON VERTEBRAL STRENGTH - ASSESSMENT WITH PATIENT-SPECIFIC NONLINEAR FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS
    FAULKNER, KG
    CANN, CE
    HASEGAWA, BH
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1991, 179 (03) : 669 - 674
  • [15] CURRENT METHODS AND ADVANCES IN BONE DENSITOMETRY
    GUGLIELMI, G
    GLUER, CC
    MAJUMDAR, S
    BLUNT, BA
    GENANT, HK
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 1995, 5 (02) : 129 - 139
  • [16] Relationship between structural parameters, bone mineral density and fracture load in lumbar vertebrae, based on high-resolution computed tomography, quantitative computed tomography and compression tests
    Haidekker, MA
    Andresen, R
    Werner, HJ
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1999, 9 (05) : 433 - 440
  • [17] Osteoporosis changes the amount of vertebral trabecular bone at risk of fracture but not the vertebral load distribution
    Homminga, J
    Weinans, H
    Gowin, W
    Felsenberg, D
    Huiskes, R
    [J]. SPINE, 2001, 26 (14) : 1555 - 1560
  • [18] DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF BOVINE TIBIAL TRABECULAR BONE DEPEND ON MODULUS
    KEAVENY, TM
    WACHTEL, EF
    FORD, CM
    HAYES, WC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1994, 27 (09) : 1137 - 1146
  • [19] AUTOMATED 3-DIMENSIONAL FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING OF BONE - A NEW METHOD
    KEYAK, JH
    MEAGHER, JM
    SKINNER, HB
    MOTE, CD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 1990, 12 (05): : 389 - 397
  • [20] Keyak JH, 1998, J BIOMECH, V31, P125, DOI 10.1016/S0021-9290(97)00123-1