In vivo assessment of lumbar vertebral strength in elderly women using computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element model

Spine

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 27-32

  Imai, Kazuhiro ^a,b   Ohnishi, Isao ^a,c   Yamamoto, Seizo ^b   Nakamura, Kozo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Elderly women; Finite element model; In vivo assessment; Osteoporosis; Vertebral strength

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BONE STRENGTH; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VERTEBRA FRACTURE;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE DENSITY; CADAVER; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; FEMALE; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPINAL FRACTURES; STRESS, MECHANICAL; THORACIC VERTEBRAE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 37649019573     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3993     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Melton LJ. Epidemiology of spinal osteoporosis. Spine 1997;22(suppl):2-11.
2. Mosekilde L, Bentzen SM, Ortoft G, et al. The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density. Bone 1989;10:465-70.
3. McBroom RJ, Hayes WC, Edwards WT, et al. Prediction of vertebral body compressive fracture using quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67:1206-14.
4. Brinckmann P, Biggemann M, Hilweg D, et al. Prediction of the compressive strength of human lumbar vertebrae. Clin Biomech 1989;4(suppl):1-27.
5. Edmondston SJ, Singer KP, Day RE, et al. In-vitro relationships between vertebral body density, size and compressive strength in the elderly thoracolumbar spine. Clin Biomecha 1994;9:180-6.
6. Cheng XG, Nicholson PH, Boonen S, et al. Prediction of vertebral strength in vitro by spinal bone densitometry and calcaneal ultrasound. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:721-8.
7. Eriksson SA, Isberg BO, Lindgren JU. Prediction of vertebral strength by dual photon absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography. Calcif Tissue Int 1989;44:243-50.
8. Myers BS, Arbogast KB, Lobaugh B, et al. Improved assessment of lumbar vertebral body strength using supine lateral dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:687-93.
9. Bjarnason K, Hassager C, Svendsen OL, et al. Anteroposterior and lateral spinal DXA for the assessment of vertebral body strength: comparison with hip and forearm measurement. Osteoporosis Int 1996;6:37-42.
10. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention D, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001;285:785-95.
11. Imai K, Ohnishi I, Bessho M, et al. Nonlinear finite element model predicts vertebral bone strength and fracture site. Spine 2006;31:1789-94.
12. Silva MJ, Wang C, Keaveny TM, et al. Direct and computed tomography thickness measurements of the human, lumbar vertebral shell and endplate. Bone 1994;15:409-14.
13. Vesterby A, Mosekilde L, Gundersen HJ, et al. Biologically meaningful determinants of the in vitro strength of lumbar vertebrae. Bone 1991;12:219-24.
14. Mosekilde L. Vertebral structure and strength in vivo and in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 1993;53(suppl):121-6.
15. Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, et al. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 1998;31:125-33.
16. Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Ford CM, et al. Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomech 1994;27:1137-46.
17. Kopperdahl DL, Keaveny TM. Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1998;31:601-8.
18. Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech 2001;34:569-77.
19. Dougherty G, Newman D. Measurement of thickness and density of thin structures by computed tomography: a simulation study. Med Phys 1999;26:1341-8.
20. Prevrhal S, Engelke K, Kalender WA. Accuracy limits for the determination of cortical width and density: the influence of object size and CT imaging parameters. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:751-64.
21. Faulkner KG, Cann CE, Hasegawa BH. Effect of bone distribution on vertebral strength: assessment with patient-specific nonlinear finite element analysis. Radiology 1991;179:669-74.
22. Rockoff SD, Sweet E, Bleustein J. The relative contribution of trabecular and cortical bone to the strength of human lumbar vertebrae. Calcif Tissue Res 1969;3:163-75.
23. Ito M. Assessment of bone quality using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and synchrotron micro-CT. J Bone Miner Metab 2005;23(suppl):115-21.
24. Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. Computed tomography-based finite element analysis predicts failure loads and fracture patterns for vertebral sections. J Orthop Res 1998;16:300-8.
25. Martin H, Werner J, Andresen R, et al. Noninvasive assessment of stiffness and failure load of human vertebrae from CT-data. Biomed Tech 1998;43:82-8.
26. Liebschner MA, Kopperdahl DL, Rosenberg WS, et al. Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine. Spine 2003;28:559-65.
27. Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone 2003;33:744-50.
28. Crawford RP, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models on the human lumbar vertebral body: effect of element size on stiffness, damage, and fracture strength predictions. J Biomech Eng 2003;125:434-8.
29. Eckstein F, Lochmüller EM, Lill CA, et al. Bone strength at clinically relevant sites displays substantial heterogeneity and is best predicted from site-specific bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 2002;17:162-71.