In situ parameter identification of optimal density-elastic modulus relationships in subject-specific finite element models of the proximal femur

Medical Engineering and Physics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 164-173

  Cong, Alexander ^a   Buijs, Jorn Op Den ^a   Dragomir Daescu, Dan ^a  

^a Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

Bone FEA; Bone mechanical properties; Optimization; Power law

Indexed keywords

ACCURATE PREDICTION; BONE DENSITY; BONE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FINITE ELEMENT MODELS; FORCE-DISPLACEMENT DATA; IN-SITU; LEAST SQUARE; LOADING CONFIGURATION; NON-INVASIVE; PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION; POWER LAW; PREDICTION ERRORS; PROXIMAL FEMUR; QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIES; SIGMOID FUNCTION; SPECIFIC LOADING; STIFFNESS AND STRENGTH PREDICTION; STIFFNESS PREDICTION; STRENGTH PREDICTION; SUBJECT-SPECIFIC; TRAINING SETS;

BONE; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; ELASTIC MODULI; FORECASTING; MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; OPTIMIZATION; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; STIFFNESS;

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; BONE STRENGTH; CADAVER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RIGIDITY; WEIGHT BEARING; YOUNG MODULUS;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE DENSITY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELASTIC MODULUS; ELASTICITY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 79951772353     PISSN: 13504533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.09.018     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Melton L.J., Cummings S.R. Heterogeneity of age-related fractures: implications for epidemiology. Bone Miner 1987, 2(4):321-331.
2. Sambrook P., Cooper C. Osteoporosis. Lancet 2006, 367(9527):2010-2018.
3. Hayes W.C., Myers E.R., Morris J.N., Gerhart T.N., Yett H.S., Lipsitz L.A. Impact near the hip dominates fracture risk in elderly nursing home residents who fall. Calcif Tissue Int 1993, 52(3):192-198.
4. Kanis J.A., McCloskey E.V., Johansson H., Oden A., Melton L.J., Khaltaev N. A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 2008, 42(3):467-475.
5. Cody D.D., Gross G.J., Hou F.J., Spencer H.J., Goldstein S.A., Fyhrie D.P. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J Biomech 1999, 32(10):1013-1020.
6. Lotz J.C., Cheal E.J., Hayes W.C. Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: Part I. Linear analysis. J Biomech Eng 1991, 113(4):353-360.
7. Bessho M., Ohnishi I., Matsuyama J., Matsumoto T., Imai K., Nakamura K. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J Biomech 2007, 40(8):1745-1753.
8. Keyak J.H., Rossi S.A., Jones K.A., Skinner H.B. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 1998, 31(2):125-133.
9. Keyak J.H., Rossi S.A., Jones K.A., Les C.M., Skinner H.B. Prediction of fracture location in the proximal femur using finite element models. Med Eng Phys 2001, 23(9):657-664.
10. Viceconti M., Davinelli M., Taddei F., Cappello A. Automatic generation of accurate subject-specific bone finite element models to be used in clinical studies. J Biomech 2004, 37(10):1597-1605.
11. Tanck E., van Aken J.B., van der Linden Y.M., Schreuder H.W.B., Binkowski M., Huizenga H., et al. Pathological fracture prediction in patients with metastatic lesions can be improved with quantitative computed tomography based computer models. Bone 2009, 45(4):777-783.
12. Schileo E., Taddei F., Malandrino A., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech 2007, 40(13):2982-2989.
13. Morgan E.F., Bayraktar H.H., Keaveny T.M. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 2003, 36(7):897-904.
14. Keller T.S. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech 1994, 27(9):1159-1168.
15. Carter D.R., Hayes W.C. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977, 59(7):954-962.
16. Helgason B., Perilli E., Schileo E., Taddei F., Brynjólfsson S., Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 2008, 23(2):135-146.
17. Kanis J.A. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group. Osteoporos Int 1994, 4(6):368-381.
18. Goulet R.W., Goldstein S.A., Ciarelli M.J., Kuhn J.L., Brown M.B., Feldkamp L.A. The relationship between the structural and orthogonal compressive properties of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1994, 27(4):375-389.
19. Keyak J.H., Lee I.Y., Skinner H.B. Correlations between orthogonal mechanical properties and density of trabecular bone: use of different densitometric measures. J Biomed Mater Res 1994, 28(11):1329-1336.
20. Laird A.K. Dynamics of tumour growth. Br J Cancer 1964, 18(3):490-502.
21. Ashman R.B., Cowin S.C., Van Buskirk W.C., Rice J.C. A continuous wave technique for the measurement of the elastic properties of cortical bone. J Biomech 1984, 17(5):349-361.
22. Turner C.H., Rho J., Takano Y., Tsui T.Y., Pharr G.M. The elastic properties of trabecular and cortical bone tissues are similar: results from two microscopic measurement techniques. J Biomech 1999, 32(4):437-441.
23. Yoon H.S., Katz J.L. Ultrasonic wave propagation in human cortical bone--II. Measurements of elastic properties and microhardness. J Biomech 1976, 9(7):459-464.
24. Reilly D.T., Burstein A.H., Frankel V.H. The elastic modulus for bone. J Biomech 1974, 7(3):271-275.
25. Taddei F., Cristofolini L., Martelli S., Gill H.S., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech 2006, 39(13):2457-2467.
26. de Bakker P.M., Manske S.L., Ebacher V., Oxland T.R., Cripton P.A., Guy P. During sideways falls proximal femur fractures initiate in the superolateral cortex: evidence from high-speed video of simulated fractures. J Biomech 2009, 42(12):1917-1925.
27. Courtney A.C., Wachtel E.F., Myers E.R., Hayes W.C. Effects of loading rate on strength of the proximal femur. Calcif Tissue Int 1994, 55(1):53-58.
28. Ashyraliyev M., Fomekong-Nanfack Y., Kaandorp J.A., Blom J.G. Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models. FEBS J 2009, 276(4):886-902.
29. Rho J.Y., Hobatho M.C., Ashman R.B. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys 1995, 17(5):347-355.
30. Yan C., Whalen R.T., Beaupre G.S., Yen S.Y., Napel S. Reconstruction algorithm for polychromatic CT imaging: application to beam hardening correction. IEEE Trans Med Img 2000, 19(1):1-11.
31. Manske S.L., Liu-Ambrose T., de Bakker P.M., Liu D., Kontulainen S., Guy P., et al. Femoral neck cortical geometry measured with magnetic resonance imaging is associated with proximal femur strength. Osteoporosis Int 2006, 17(10):1433-2965.
32. Nalla R.K., Kinney J.H., Ritchie R.O. Mechanistic fracture criteria for the failure of human cortical bone. Nat Mater 2003, 2:164-168.
33. Taylor D. Fracture mechanics: how does bone break?. Nat Mater 2003, 2:133-134.
34. Fritsch A., Hellmich C. 'Universal' microstructural patterns in cortical and trabecular, extracellular and extravascular bone materials: Micromechanics-based prediction of anisotropic elasticity. J Theor Biol 2007, 244(4):597-620.
35. Nikolov S, Raabe D. Hierarchical modeling of the elastic properties of bone at submicron scales: the role of extrafibrillar mineralization. Biophys J 2008, 94(11):4220-4232.
36. Tanck E., Deenen J.C.W., Huisman H.J., Kooloos J.G., Huizenga H., Werdonschot N. An anatomically shaped lower body model for CT scanning of cadaver femurs. Phys Med Biol 2010, 55(2):N57-N62.