Computed-tomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurately capture strain response to bending and torsion

Journal of Biomechanics

Volumn 44, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1374-1379

  Varghese, Bino ^a   Short, David ^a   Penmetsa, Ravi ^a   Goswami, Tarun ^a   Hangartner, Thomas ^a  

^a WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Finite element analysis; Long bones; Mechanical testing

Indexed keywords

BONE SEGMENTATION; BONE SIZE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DATA SETS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; FE MODEL; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FINITE ELEMENT MODELS; LOADING CONDITION; LONG BONE; LONG BONES; MATERIAL PROPERTY; MECHANICAL TESTS; POISSON'S RATIO; STRAIN GAUGE; STRAIN RESPONSE; SURFACE STRAINS; THREE POINT BENDING; TRABECULAR BONES; VOLUME EFFECT; VOLUMETRIC CT; YOUNG'S MODULUS;

BENDING TESTS; BIOMECHANICS; BONE; ERRORS; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; MATERIALS PROPERTIES; MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; POISSON RATIO; STRAIN; STRAIN GAGES; TORSIONAL STRESS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMECHANICS; BONE BOWING; BONE STRESS; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMERUS; LONG BONE; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIUS; STRESS STRAIN RELATIONSHIP; SURFACE PROPERTY; TIBIA; TORSION; TRABECULAR BONE; VOLUMETRY; YOUNG MODULUS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMECHANICS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; HUMERUS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ANATOMIC; RADIUS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TIBIA; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 79954568880     PISSN: 00219290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.12.028     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Augat P., Reeb H., Claes L.E. Prediction of fracture load at different skeletal sites by geometric properties of the cortical shell. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1996, 9:1356-1363.
2. Austman R.L., Milner J.S., Holdsworth D.W., Dunning C.E. The effect of the density-modulus relationship selected to apply material properties in a finite element model of long bone. Journal of Biomechanics 2008, 15:3171-3176.
3. Barker D.S., Netherway D.J., Krishnan J., Hearn T.C. Validation of a finite element model of the human metacarpal. Medical Engineering and Physics 2005, 2:103-113.
4. Beaupied H., Lespessailles E., Benhamou C. Evaluation of macrostructural bone biomechanics. Joint Bone Spine 2007, 3:233-239.
5. 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. Journal of Biomechanics 2007, 8:1745-1753.
6. Carter D.R., Hayes W.C. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American 1977, 7:954-962.
7. Chan T.F., Vese L.A. Active contours without edges. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2001, 2:266-277.
8. Dougherty G. Quantitative CT in the measurement of bone quantity and bone quality for assessing osteoporosis. Medical Engineering & Physics 1996, 7:557-568.
9. Evans F.G. Mechanical Properties of Bone. 1973, Charles C. Thomas, Illinois.
10. Hangartner T.N. The OsteoQuant: an isotope based CT scanner for precise measurement of bone density. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 1993, 17:798-805.
11. Hangartner T.N., Gilsanz V. Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research: The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 1996, 10:1518-1525.
12. Hangartner T.N., Short D.F. Accurate quantification of width and density of bone structures by computed tomography. Medical Physics 2007, 10:3777-3784.
13. Helgason B., Perilli E., Schileo E., Taddei F., Brynjólfsson S., ur, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clinical Biomechanics 2008, 2:135-146.
14. Morgan E.F., Bayraktar H.H., Keaveny T.M. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. Journal of Biomechanics 2003, 7:897-904.
15. Schileo E., Taddei F., Malandrino A., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. Journal of Biomechanics 2007, 13:2982-2989.
16. Schileo E., Taddei F., Malandrino A., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. Journal of Biomechanics 2007, 13:2982-2989.
17. Schileo E., Dall'Ara E., Taddei F., Malandrino A., Schotkamp T., Baleani M., Viceconti M. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. Journal of Biomechanics 2008, 11:2483-2491.
18. 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. Journal of Biomechanics 2006, 13:2457-2467.
19. Ulrich D., van Rietbergen B., Weinans H., Rüegsegger P. Finite element analysis of trabecular bone structure: a comparison of image based meshing techniques. Journal of Biomechanics 1998, 31:1187-1192.
20. Viceconti, M., Toni, A., Giunti, A., 1992. Strain gauge analysis of hard tissues: factors influencing measurements. In: Little, E.G. (Ed.), Experimental Mechanics. Technology Transfer Between High Tech Engineering and Biomechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 177-184.
21. van Rietbergen B., Huiskes R., Eckstein F., Rüegsegger P. Trabecular bone tissue strains in the healthy and osteoporotic human femur. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2003, 10:1781-1788.
22. Wu Q., Merchant F.A., Castleman K.R. Microscope Image Processing 2008, Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, pp. 128-138.