Anterior bending on whole vertebrae using controlled boundary conditions for model validation

Journal of Musculoskeletal Research

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 71-76

  Sapin, Emilie ^a   Chan, Frédéric ^a   Ayoub, Ghazi ^a,b   Roux, Christian ^b   Skalli, Wafa ^a   Mitton, David ^a  

^a LABORATOIRE DE BIOMÉCANIQUE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

Bending; Biomechanics; Boundary conditions; Finite element models; Vertebra

Indexed keywords

POLYMETHACRYLIC ACID;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANTERIOR BENDING; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE STRENGTH; FINITE ELEMENT MODEL; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINE; MUSCULOSKELETAL FUNCTION; MUSCULOSKELETAL STIFFNESS; THORACIC SPINE; VALIDITY; VERTEBRA BODY; VERTEBRA DISLOCATION;

EID: 67650539050     PISSN: 02189577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0218957709002250     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Buckley JM, Cheng L, Loo K. Quantitative computed tomography-based predictions of vertebral strength in anterior bending. Spine 32 9): 1019-1027, 2007.
2. Buckley JM, Loo K, Motherway J. Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone 40(3): 767, 2007.
3. Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone 33: 744-750, 2003.
4. Crawford RP, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models of the human lumbar vertebral body: Effect of element size on stiffness, damage, and fracture strength predictions. J Biomech Eng 125(4): 434-438, 2003.
5. Gangnet N et al. Variability of the spine and pelvis location with respect to the gravity line: A 3D stereoradiographic study using a force platform. Surg Radiol Anat 25(5/6): 424-433, 2003.
6. Haidekker MA, Andresen R, Werner HJ. 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. Osteoporos Int 9: 433-440, 1999.
7. Homminga J et al. The osteoporotic vertebral structure is well adapted to the loads of daily life, but not to infrequent "error" loads. Bone 34: 510-516, 2004.
8. Kopperdahl DL, Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Orthop Res 20: 801-805, 2002.
9. Kopperdahl DL, Pearlman JL, Keaveny TM. Biomechanical consequences of an isolated overload on the human vertebral body. J Orthop Res 18 685-690, 2000.
10. Liebschner MAK et al. Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine. Spine 28(6): 559-565, 2003.
11. Mizrahi J et al. Finite-element stress analysis of the normal and osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body. Spine 18(14): 2088-2096, 1993.
12. Schileo E et al. Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. J Biomech 41: 356-367, 2008.
13. Singer K et al. Prediction of thoracic and lumbar vertebral body compressive strength: Correlations with bone mineral density and vertebral region. Bone 17: 167-174, 1995.