0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Bone/Orthopedic

Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Models of the Human Lumbar Vertebral Body: Effect of Element Size on Stiffness, Damage, and Fracture Strength Predictions

[+] Author and Article Information
R. Paul Crawford, William S. Rosenberg

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143

Tony M. Keaveny

Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740

J Biomech Eng 125(4), 434-438 (Aug 01, 2003) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1589772 History: Received April 03, 2002; Revised April 03, 2003; Online August 01, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Genant,  H. K., Engelke,  K., Fuerst,  T., Glüer,  C. C., Grampp,  S., Harris,  S. T., Jergas,  M., Lang,  T., Lu,  Y., Majumdar,  S., Mathur,  A., and Takada,  M., 1996, “Noninvasive Assessment of Bone Mineral and Structure: State of the Art,” J. Bone Miner. Res., 11, pp. 707–730.
Faulkner,  K. G., Cann,  C. E., and Hasegawa,  B. H., 1991, “Effect of Bone Distribution on Vertebral Strength: Assessment With a Patient-Specific Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis,” Radiology, 179, pp. 669–674.
Martin,  H., Werner,  J., Andresen,  R., Schober,  H. C., and Schmitz,  K. P., 1998, “Noninvasive Assessment of Stiffness and Failure Load of Human Vertebrae From CT-Data,” Biomed. Tech., 43, pp. 82–88.
Homminga,  J., Weinans,  H., Gowin,  W., Felsenberg,  D., and Huiskes,  R., 2001, “Osteoporosis Changes the Amount of Vertebral Trabecular Bone at Risk of Fracture but Not the Vertebral Load Distribution,” Spine, 26, pp. 1555–1561.
Silva,  M. J., Keaveny,  T. M., and Hayes,  W. C., 1998, “Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis Predicts Failure Loads and Fracture Patterns for Vertebral Sections,” J. Orthop. Res., 16, pp. 300–308.
Keyak,  J. H., Meagher,  J. M., Skinner,  H. B., and Mote,  C. D., 1990, “Automated Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone: A New Method,” J. Biomed. Eng., 12, pp. 389–397.
Keyak,  J. H., and Skinner,  H. B., 1992, “Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone—Effects of Element Size,” J. Biomed. Eng., 14, pp. 483–489.
Marks,  L. W., and Gardner,  T. N., 1993, “The Use of Strain Energy as a Convergence Criterion in the Finite Element Modelling of Bone and the Effect of Model Geometry on Stress Convergence,” J. Biomed. Eng., 15, pp. 474–476.
Guldberg,  R. E., Hollister,  S. J., and Charras,  G. T., 1998, “The Accuracy of Digital Image-Based Finite Element Models.,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 120, pp. 289–295.
Niebur,  G. L., Yuen,  J. C., Hsia,  A. C., and Keaveny,  T. M., 1999, “Convergence Behavior of High-Resolution Finite Element Models of Trabecular Bone,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 121, pp. 629–635.
Silva,  M. J., Keaveny,  T. M., and Hayes,  W. C., 1994, “Direct and Computed Tomography Thickness Measurements of the Human Lumbar Vertebral Shell and Endplate.,” Bone, 15, pp. 409–414.
Vesterby,  A., Mosekilde,  L., Gundersen,  H. J. G., Melsen,  F., Mosekilde,  L., Holem,  K., and Sorensen,  S., 1991, “Biologically Meaningful Determinants of the In Vitro Strength of Lumbar Vertebrae,” Bone, 12, pp. 219–224.
Kopperdahl,  D. L., Pearlman,  J. L., and Keaveny,  T. M., 2000, “Biomechanical Consequences of an Isolated Overload on the Human Vertebral Body,” J. Orthop. Res., 18, pp. 685–690.
Carter,  D. R., and Hayes,  W. C., 1977, “The Compressive Behavior of Bone as a Two-Phase Porous Structure,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., Am. Vol., 59-A, pp. 954–962.
Lewis,  G., 1997, “Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement: State of the Art Review,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 38, pp. 155–182.
Kopperdahl,  D. L., Morgan,  E. F., and Keaveny,  T. M., 2002, “Quantitative Computed Tomography Estimates of the Mechanical Properties of Human Vertebral Trabecular Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 20, pp. 801–805.
Ulrich,  D., Van Rietbergen,  B., Laib,  A., and Rueegsegger,  P., 1999, “The Ability of Three-Dimensional Structural Indices to Reflect Mechanical Aspects of Trabecular Bone,” Bone, 25, pp. 55–60.
Mosekilde,  L., Mosekilde,  L., and Danielsen,  C. C., 1987, “Biomechanical Competence of Vertebral Trabecular Bone in Relation to Ash Density and Age in Normal Individuals,” Bone, 8, pp. 79–85.
Fyhrie,  D. P., and Vashishth,  D., 2000, “Bone Stiffness Predicts Strength Similarly for Human Vertebral Cancellous Bone in Compression and for Cortical Bone in Tension,” Bone, 26, pp. 169–173.
Morgan,  E. F., and Keaveny,  T. M., 2001, “Dependence of Yield Strain of Human Trabecular Bone on Anatomic Site,” J. Biomech., 34, pp. 569–577.
Hou,  F. J., Lang,  S. M., Hoshaw,  S. J., Reimann,  D. A., and Fyhrie,  D. P., 1998, “Human Vertebral Body Apparent and Hard Tissue Stiffness,” J. Biomech., 31, pp. 1009–1015.
Yeni,  Y. N., and Fyhrie,  D. P., 2001, “Finite Element Calculated Uniaxial Apparent Stiffness is a Consistent Predictor of Uniaxial Apparent Strength in Human Vertebral Cancellous Bone Tested With Different Boundary Conditions,” J. Biomech., 34, pp. 1649–1654.
Kopperdahl,  D. L., and Keaveny,  T. M., 1998, “Yield Strain Behavior of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 31, pp. 601–608.
Keaveny,  T. M., Wachtel,  E. F., and Kopperdahl,  D. L., 1999, “Mechanical Behavior of Human Trabecular Bone After Overloading,” J. Orthop. Res., 17, pp. 346–353.
Cann,  C. E., Genant,  H. K., Kolb,  F. O., and Ettinger,  B., 1985, “Quantitative Computed Tomography for Prediction of Vertebral Fracture Risk,” Bone, 6, pp. 1–7.
Melton,  L. J., Khosla,  S., Atkinson,  E. J., Oconnor,  M. K., Ofallon,  W. M., and Riggs,  B. L., 2000, “Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Evaluation of Bone Loss in Men and Women,” Osteoporosis Int., 11, pp. 592–599.
Keaveny,  T. M., Pinilla,  T. P., Crawford,  R. P., Kopperdahl,  D. L., and Lou,  A., 1997, “Systematic and Random Errors in Compression Testing of Trabecular Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 15, pp. 101–110.
Cody,  D. D., Hou,  F. J., Divine,  G. W., and Fyhrie,  D. P., 2000, “Short Term in Vivo Precision of Proximal Femoral Finite Element Modeling,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 28, pp. 408–414.
Ebbesen,  E. N., Thomsen,  J. S., Beck-Nielsen,  H., Nepper-Rasmussen,  H. J., and Mosekilde,  L., 1998, “Vertebral Bone Density Evaluated by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Quantitative Computed Tomography in Vitro,” Bone, 23, pp. 283–290.
Cody,  D. D., Gross,  G. J., Hou,  F. J., Spencer,  H. J., Goldstein,  S. A., and Fyhrie,  D. P., 1999, “Femoral Strength is Better Predicted by Finite Element Models Than QCT and DXA,” J. Biomech., 32, pp. 1013–1020.
Keyak,  J. H., Rossi,  S. A., Jones,  K. A., and Skinner,  H. B., 1998, “Prediction of Femoral Fracture Load Using Automated Finite Element Modeling,” J. Biomech., 31, pp. 125–133.
Keyak,  J. H., Fourkas,  M. G., Meagher,  J. M., and Skinner,  H. B., 1993, “Validation of an Automated Method of 3-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone,” J. Biomed. Eng., 15, pp. 505–509.
Lengsfeld,  M., Schmitt,  J., Alter,  P., Kaminsky,  J., and Leppek,  R., 1998, “Comparison of Geometry-Based and CT Voxel-Based Finite Element Modelling and Experimental Validation,” Med. Eng. Phys., 20, pp. 515–522.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of “low” (3×3×3 mm element size) and “high” (1×1×1.5 mm) resolution voxel-based finite element models of the same vertebral body. The low-resolution model contains 2105 nodes and 1524 elements while the high resolution model contains 27,298 nodes and 23,725 elements. Elements of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) necessary to establish plano-parallel surfaces on the top and bottom of the vertebral body are identified by the darker colors (solid layers of PMMA not shown).
Grahic Jump Location
Finite element-derived stiffness values for each vertebral body as a function of in-plane resolution (1, 2, 3, or 4 mm) and slice thickness (1.5 mm or 3 mm). Linear regression lines are shown for each vertebral body as a function of in-plane element size for both slice thickness values. An analysis of covariance indicated that stiffness was positively correlated with in-plane resolution (p<0.0001) and negatively correlated with slice thickness (p=0.0036).
Grahic Jump Location
Axial strain (Ezz), axial stress (Szz), maximum principal strain, and minimum principal strain of high resolution model depicted in Fig. 1 under a load corresponding to an overall strain of 0.5% (a, b, c, and d, respectively). A wedge-shaped section was removed to illustrate results in the trabecular centrum. The maximum legend shading in c and minimum legend shading in d represent elements that exceeded the defined failure criterion in tension and compression, respectively.
Grahic Jump Location
Plot of experimentally measured fracture strength (Fmax) as a function of high- (1×1×1.5 mm element size) and low- (3×3×3 mm) resolution model stiffness (K). Regression equation reports slope and intercept (±standard error). The high-resolution model stiffness was 4% greater (p=0.05) than the low-resolution model. The slopes (p<0.001) and intercepts (p<0.007) were significantly different from zero, but the high- and low-resolution slopes were not significantly different from each other (p=0.85). Eliminating the strongest vertebral body resulted in the following changes (n=13): high-resolution model Fmax=0.29±0.039 K–0.35±0.72,r2=0.83; low-resolution model, Fmax=0.28±0.043 K–0.45±0.82,r2=0.80.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In