Research Papers

Quantitative Computed Tomography Protocols Affect Material Mapping and Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite-Element Analysis Predicted Stiffness

[+] Author and Article Information
Hugo Giambini

Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering Laboratory,
Department of Orthopedic Surgery,
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905
e-mail: giambini.hugo@mayo.edu

Dan Dragomir-Daescu

Division of Engineering,
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905
e-mail: dragomirdaescu.dan@mayo.edu

Ahmad Nassr

Division of Orthopedic Research,
Department of Orthopedic Surgery,
Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, MN 55905
e-mail: nassr.ahmad@mayo.edu

Michael J. Yaszemski

Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering Laboratory,
Department of Orthopedic Surgery,
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905
e-mail: yaszemski.michael@mayo.edu

Chunfeng Zhao

Biomechanics Laboratory,
Division of Orthopedic Research,
Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, MN 55905
e-mail: zhao.chunfeng@mayo.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received February 23, 2016; final manuscript received July 6, 2016; published online July 29, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Joel D. Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 138(9), 091003 (Jul 29, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: BIO-16-1069; doi: 10.1115/1.4034172 History: Received February 23, 2016; Revised July 06, 2016

Quantitative computed tomography-based finite-element analysis (QCT/FEA) has become increasingly popular in an attempt to understand and possibly reduce vertebral fracture risk. It is known that scanning acquisition settings affect Hounsfield units (HU) of the CT voxels. Material properties assignments in QCT/FEA, relating HU to Young's modulus, are performed by applying empirical equations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of QCT scanning protocols on predicted stiffness values from finite-element models. One fresh frozen cadaveric torso and a QCT calibration phantom were scanned six times varying voltage and current and reconstructed to obtain a total of 12 sets of images. Five vertebrae from the torso were experimentally tested to obtain stiffness values. QCT/FEA models of the five vertebrae were developed for the 12 image data resulting in a total of 60 models. Predicted stiffness was compared to the experimental values. The highest percent difference in stiffness was approximately 480% (80 kVp, 110 mAs, U70), while the lowest outcome was ∼1% (80 kVp, 110 mAs, U30). There was a clear distinction between reconstruction kernels in predicted outcomes, whereas voltage did not present a clear influence on results. The potential of QCT/FEA as an improvement to conventional fracture risk prediction tools is well established. However, it is important to establish research protocols that can lead to results that can be translated to the clinical setting.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Matsuura, Y. , Giambini, H. , Ogawa, Y. , Fang, Z. , Thoreson, A. R. , Yaszemski, M. J. , Lu, L. , and An, K. N. , 2014, “ Specimen-Specific Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling to Predict Vertebrae Fracture Loads After Vertebroplasty,” Spine, 39(22), pp. E1291–E1296. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mirzaei, M. , Zeinali, A. , Razmjoo, A. , and Nazemi, M. , 2009, “ On Prediction of the Strength Levels and Failure Patterns of Human Vertebrae Using Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT)-Based Finite Element Method,” J. Biomech., 42(11), pp. 1584–1591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Unnikrishnan, G. U. , Barest, G. D. , Berry, D. B. , Hussein, A. I. , and Morgan, E. F. , 2013, “ Effect of Specimen-Specific Anisotropic Material Properties in Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis of the Vertebra,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 135(10), p. 101007. [CrossRef]
Unnikrishnan, G. U. , and Morgan, E. F. , 2011, “ A New Material Mapping Procedure for Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based, Continuum Finite Element Analyses of the Vertebra,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 133(7), p. 071001. [CrossRef]
Zysset, P. K. , Dall'ara, E. , Varga, P. , and Pahr, D. H. , 2013, “ Finite Element Analysis for Prediction of Bone Strength,” BoneKEy Reports, 2, p. 386. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, X. , Sanyal, A. , Cawthon, P. M. , Palermo, L. , Jekir, M. , Christensen, J. , Ensrud, K. E. , Cummings, S. R. , Orwoll, E. , Black, D. M. , and Keaveny, T. M. , 2012, “ Prediction of New Clinical Vertebral Fractures in Elderly Men Using Finite Element Analysis of Ct Scans,” J. Bone Miner. Res. Off. J. Am. Soc. Bone Miner. Res., 27(4), pp. 808–816. [CrossRef]
Cann, C. E. , 1987, “ Quantitative CT Applications: Comparison of Current Scanners,” Radiology, 162(1 Pt 1), pp. 257–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Levi, C. , Gray, J. E. , Mccullough, E. C. , and Hattery, R. R. , 1982, “ The Unreliability of CT Numbers as Absolute Values,” AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol., 139(3), pp. 443–447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Paul, J. , Krauss, B. , Banckwitz, R. , Maentele, W. , Bauer, R. W. , and Vogl, T. J. , 2012, “ Relationships of Clinical Protocols and Reconstruction Kernels With Image Quality and Radiation Dose in a 128-Slice CT Scanner: Study With an Anthropomorphic and Water Phantom,” Eur. J. Radiol., 81(5), pp. e699–e703. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morgan, E. F. , Bayraktar, H. H. , and Keaveny, T. M. , 2003, “ Trabecular Bone Modulus-Density Relationships Depend on Anatomic Site,” J. Biomech., 36(7), pp. 897–904. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Les, C. M. , Keyak, J. H. , Stover, S. M. , Taylor, K. T. , and Kaneps, A. J. , 1994, “ Estimation of Material Properties in the Equine Metacarpus With Use of Quantitative Computed Tomography,” J. Orthop. Res., 12(6), pp. 822–833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dragomir-Daescu, D. , Salas, C. , Uthamaraj, S. , and Rossman, T. , 2015, “ Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis Predictions of Femoral Strength and Stiffness Depend on Computed Tomography Settings,” J. Biomech., 48(1), pp. 153–161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Giambini, H. , Dragomir-Daescu, D. , Huddleston, P. M. , Camp, J. J. , An, K. N. , and Nassr, A. , 2015, “ The Effect of Quantitative Computed Tomography Acquisition Protocols on Bone Mineral Density Estimation,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 137(11), p. 114502. [CrossRef]
Giambini, H. , Qin, X. , Dragomir-Daescu, D. , An, K. N. , and Nassr, A. , 2016, “ Specimen-Specific Vertebral Fracture Modeling: A Feasibility Study Using the Extended Finite Element Method,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 54(4), pp. 583–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dragomir-Daescu, D. , Op Den Buijs, J. , Mceligot, S. , Dai, Y. , Entwistle, R. C. , Salas, C. , Melton, L. J., III , Bennet, K. E. , Khosla, S. , and Amin, S. , 2011, “ Robust QCT/FEA Models of Proximal Femur Stiffness and Fracture Load During a Sideways Fall on the Hip,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 39(2), pp. 742–755. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jang, K. , Kweon, D. , Lee, J. , Choi, J. , Goo, E. , Dong, K. , Lee, J. , Jin, G. , and Seo, S. , 2011, “ Measurement of Image Quality in CT Images Reconstructed With Different Kernels,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 58(2), pp. 334–342. [CrossRef]
Cong, A. , Buijs, J. O. , and Dragomir-Daescu, D. , 2011, “ In Situ Parameter Identification of Optimal Density-Elastic Modulus Relationships in Subject-Specific Finite Element Models of the Proximal Femur,” Med. Eng. Phys., 33(2), pp. 164–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Imai, K. , Ohnishi, I. , Bessho, M. , and Nakamura, K. , 2006, “ Nonlinear Finite Element Model Predicts Vertebral Bone Strength and Fracture Site,” Spine, 31(16), pp. 1789–1794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
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(4), pp. 801–805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mirzaei, M. , Keshavarzian, M. , and Naeini, V. , 2014, “ Analysis of Strength and Failure Pattern of Human Proximal Femur Using Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT)-Based Finite Element Method,” Bone, 64, pp. 108–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rossman, T. , Kushvaha, V. , and Dragomir-Daescu, D. , 2015, “ QCT/FEA Predictions of Femoral Stiffness are Strongly Affected by Boundary Condition Modeling,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 19(2), pp. 208–216.
Bonaretti, S. , Carpenter, R. D. , Saeed, I. , Burghardt, A. J. , Yu, L. , Bruesewitz, M. , Khosla, S. , and Lang, T. , 2014, “ Novel Anthropomorphic Hip Phantom Corrects Systemic Interscanner Differences in Proximal Femoral vBMD,” Phys. Med. Biol., 59(24), pp. 7819–7834. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

QCT/FEA process. Assignment of material properties (step 4) to the finite elements of the models is based on Hounsfield unit values from the CT images and estimated bone mineral densities obtained using a calibration phantom.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Axial view of a vertebral body using high resolution scans (140 kVp, 200 mAs) reconstructed with (a) sharp (U70) and (b) smooth (U30) kernels. The smooth reconstruction kernel shows a lower image quality and contrast compared to the sharp kernel. (c–d) Same finite-element mesh was imported into the different CT image data for material properties assignment.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Estimated vBMD versus Hounsfield unit values. Calibration curves obtained from the calibration phantoms for varying scanning and image reconstruction algorithms. Hounsfield unit values are extrapolated to 3000 [HU] to represent cortical values. Solid and dotted lines represent sharp (U70) and soft (U30) kernels, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Predicted and experimental measured stiffness. Stiffness difference for all models versus predicted stiffness based on (a) voltage parameters and (b) reconstruction kernels. Percent different for all models and vertebral level based on (c) voltage parameters and (d) reconstruction kernels.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Number of elements per material bin for two representative vertebrae. The thoracic vertebra shows a smaller number of total elements compared to the lumbar vertebra as described by the relative frequency at each bin. Element density and Young's modulus for each scan will vary according to the different values of Hounsfield units acquired at each bin and the different calibration equations corresponding to each combination of scan parameters (Table 2).



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