Clinical Use of Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis of the Hip and Spine in the Management of Osteoporosis in Adults: The 2015 ISCD Official Positions-Part II

Journal of Clinical Densitometry

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 359-392

  Zysset, Philippe ^a   Qin, Ling ^b   Lang, Thomas ^c   Khosla, Sundeep ^d   Leslie, William D ^e   Shepherd, John A ^d   Schousboe, John T ^f,g   Engelke, Klaus ^h,i  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^f PARK NICOLLET CLINIC   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

ⁱ BioClinica Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Finite element analysis (FEA); Osteoporosis; Position; Quantitative computed tomography (QCT)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; BONE MINERAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DUAL ENERGY X RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HIP; HIP FRACTURE; HUMAN; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING; SPINE; SPINE FRACTURE; ACETABULUM; COMPLICATION; CONSENSUS; FEMUR; FRACTURES, BONE; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PHOTON ABSORPTIOMETRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIOGRAPHY;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; ACETABULUM; ADULT; BONE DENSITY; CONSENSUS; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84946913798     PISSN: 10946950     EISSN: 15590747     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.06.011     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Engelke K., Adams J.E., Armbrecht G., et al. Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography and peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 2008, 11(1):123-162.
2. D'Elia G., Caracchini G., Cavalli L., Innocenti P. Bone fragility and imaging techniques. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2009, 6(3):234-246.
3. Engelke K., Libanati C., Fuerst T., et al. Advanced CT based in vivo methods for the assessment of bone density, structure, and strength. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2013, 11(3):246-255.
4. Keaveny T.M. Biomechanical computed tomography-noninvasive bone strength analysis using clinical computed tomography scans. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010, 1192:57-65.
5. Turner C.H. Bone strength: current concepts. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006, 1068:429-446.
6. Dall'Ara E., Pahr D., Varga P., et al. QCT-based finite element models predict human vertebral strength in vitro significantly better than simulated DEXA. Osteoporos Int 2012, 23(2):563-572.
7. Ebbesen E.N., Thomsen J.S., Beck-Nielsen H., et al. Lumbar vertebral body compressive strength evaluated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and ashing. Bone 1999, 25(6):713-724.
8. Dall'Ara E., Luisier B., Schmidt R., et al. DXA predictions of human femoral mechanical properties depend on the load configuration. Med Eng Phys 2013, 35(11):1564-1572. discussion 1564.
9. Dragomir-Daescu D., Op Den Buijs J., McEligot S., et al. Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip. Ann Biomed Eng 2011, 39(2):742-755.
10. Crawford R.P., Rosenberg W.S., Keaveny T.M. 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 2003, 125(4):434-438.
11. Hayes W.C., Piazza S.J., Zysset P.K. Biomechanics of fracture risk prediction of the hip and spine by quantitative computed tomography. Radiol Clin North Am 1991, 29(1):1-18.
12. Kopperdahl D.L., Morgan E.F., Keaveny T.M. Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Orthop Res 2002, 20(4):801-805.
13. Mosekilde L., Bentzen S.M., Ørtoft G., Jørgensen J. The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density. Bone 1989, 10:465-470.
14. Samelson E.J., Christiansen B.A., Demissie S., et al. QCT measures of bone strength at the thoracic and lumbar spine: the Framingham Study. J Bone Miner Res 2012, 27(3):654-663.
15. Lochmuller E.M., Burklein D., Kuhn V., et al. Mechanical strength of the thoracolumbar spine in the elderly: prediction from in situ dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), upper and lower limb peripheral QCT, and quantitative ultrasound. Bone 2002, 31(1):77-84.
16. Bessho M., Ohnishi I., Matsuyama J., et al. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J Biomech 2007, 40(8):1745-1753.
17. Bousson V., Le Bras A., Roqueplan F., et al. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: relationships linking geometric and densitometric variables to bone strength. Role for compact bone. Osteoporos Int 2006, 17(6):855-864.
18. Dall'Ara E., Luisier B., Schmidt R., et al. A nonlinear QCT-based finite element model validation study for the human femur tested in two configurations in vitro. Bone 2013, 52(1):27-38.
19. 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.
20. Lochmuller E.M., Groll O., Kuhn V., Eckstein F. Mechanical strength of the proximal femur as predicted from geometric and densitometric bone properties at the lower limb versus the distal radius. Bone 2002, 30(1):207-216.
21. Martin H., Werner J., Andresen R., et al. Noninvasive assessment of stiffness and failure load of human vertebrae from CT-data. Biomed Tech (Berl) 1998, 43(4):82-88.
22. Imai K., Ohnishi I., Bessho M., Nakamura K. Nonlinear finite element model predicts vertebral bone strength and fracture site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006, 31(16):1789-1794.
23. Buckley J.M., Loo K., Motherway J. Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone 2007, 40(3):767-774.
24. Koivumaki J.E., Thevenot J., Pulkkinen P., et al. CT-based finite element models can be used to estimate experimentally measured failure loads in the proximal femur. Bone 2012, 50(4):824-829.
25. Faulkner K.G., Cann C.E., Hasegawa B.H. Effect of bone distribution on vertebral strength: assessment with patient-specific nonlinear finite element analysis. Radiology 1991, 179(3):669-674.
26. Andresen R., Werner H.J., Schober H.C. Contribution of the cortical shell of vertebrae to mechanical behaviour of the lumbar vertebrae with implications for predicting fracture risk. Br J Radiol 1998, 71(847):759-765.
27. Imai K., Ohnishi I., Yamamoto S., Nakamura K. In vivo assessment of lumbar vertebral strength in elderly women using computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33(1):27-32.
28. Imai K., Ohnishi I., Matsumoto T., et al. Assessment of vertebral fracture risk and therapeutic effects of alendronate in postmenopausal women using a quantitative computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element method. Osteoporos Int 2009, 20(5):801-810.
29. Amin S., Kopperdhal D.L., Melton L.J., et al. Association of hip strength estimates by finite-element analysis with fractures in women and men. J Bone Miner Res 2011, 26(7):1593-1600.
30. GraeffC., Marin F., Petto H., et al. High resolution quantitative computed tomography-based assessment of trabecular microstructure and strength estimates by finite-element analysis of the spine, but not DXA, reflects vertebral fracture status in men with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Bone 2013, 52(2):568-577.
31. Kopperdahl D.L., Aspelund T., Hoffmann P.F., et al. Assessment of incident spine and hip fractures in women and men using finite element analysis of CT scans. J Bone Miner Res 2014, 29(3):570-580.
32. Wang X., Sanyal A., Cawthon P.M., et al. Prediction of new clinical vertebral fractures in elderly men using finite element analysis of CT scans. J Bone Miner Res 2012, 27(4):808-816.
33. Cody D.D., Hou F.J., Divine G.W., Fyhrie D.P. Femoral structure and stiffness in patients with femoral neck fracture. J Orthop Res 2000, 18(3):443-448.
34. Nishiyama K.K., Ito M., Harada A., Boyd S.K. Classification of women with and without hip fracture based on quantitative computed tomography and finite element analysis. Osteoporos Int 2014, 25(2):619-626.
35. Ito M., Wakao N., Hida T., et al. Analysis of hip geometry by clinical CT for the assessment of hip fracture risk in elderly Japanese women. Bone 2010, 46(2):453-457.
36. Keyak J.H., Sigurdsson S., Karlsdottir G.S., et al. Effect of finite element model loading condition on fracture risk assessment in men and women: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Bone 2013, 57(1):18-29.
37. Keyak J.H., Sigurdsson S., Karlsdottir G., et al. Male-female differences in the association between incident hip fracture and proximal femoral strength: a finite element analysis study. Bone 2011, 48(6):1239-1245.
38. Orwoll E.S., Marshall L.M., Nielson C.M., et al. Finite element analysis of the proximal femur and hip fracture risk in older men. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24(3):475-483. G. Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study.
39. Keaveny T.M., Kopperdahl D.L., Melton L.J., et al. Age-dependence of femoral strength in white women and men. J Bone Miner Res 2010, 25(5):994-1001.
40. Nicks K.M., Amin S., Melton L.J., et al. Three-dimensional structural analysis of the proximal femur in an age-stratified sample of women. Bone 2013, 55(1):179-188.
41. Srinivasan B., Kopperdahl D.L., Amin S., et al. Relationship of femoral neck areal bone mineral density to volumetric bone mineral density, bone size, and femoral strength in men and women. Osteoporos Int 2012, 23(1):155-162.
42. Lang T.F., Sigurdsson S., Karlsdottir G., et al. Age-related loss of proximal femoral strength in elderly men and women: the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility Study-Reykjavik. Bone 2012, 50(3):743-748.
43. Christiansen B.A., Kopperdahl D.L., Kiel D.P., et al. Mechanical contributions of the cortical and trabecular compartments contribute to differences in age-related changes in vertebral body strength in men and women assessed by QCT-based finite element analysis. J Bone Miner Res 2011, 26(5):974-983.
44. Lian K.C., Lang T.F., Keyak J.H., et al. Differences in hip quantitative computed tomography (QCT) measurements of bone mineral density and bone strength between glucocorticoid-treated and glucocorticoid-naive postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16(6):642-650.
45. Keyak J.H., Koyama A.K., LeBlanc A., et al. Reduction in proximal femoral strength due to long-duration spaceflight. Bone 2009, 44(3):449-453.
46. Lewiecki E.M., Keaveny T.M., Kopperdahl D.L., et al. Once-monthly oral ibandronate improves biomechanical determinants of bone strength in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009, 94(1):171-180.
47. Keaveny T.M., Donley D.W., Hoffmann P.F., et al. Effects of teriparatide and alendronate on vertebral strength as assessed by finite element modeling of QCT scans in women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2007, 22(1):149-157.
48. Keaveny T.M., Hoffmann P.F., Singh M., et al. Femoral bone strength and its relation to cortical and trabecular changes after treatment with PTH, alendronate, and their combination as assessed by finite element analysis of quantitative CT scans. J Bone Miner Res 2008, 23(12):1974-1982.
49. Gluer C.C., Marin F., Ringe J.D., et al. Comparative effects of teriparatide and risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men: 18-month results of the EuroGIOPs trial. J Bone Miner Res 2013, 28(6):1355-1368.
50. Imai K. Vertebral fracture risk and alendronate effects on osteoporosis assessed by a computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element method. J Bone Miner Metab 2011, 29(6):645-651.
51. Chevalier Y., Quek E., Borah B., et al. Biomechanical effects of teriparatide in women with osteoporosis treated previously with alendronate and risedronate: results from quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis of the vertebral body. Bone 2010, 46(1):41-48.
52. GraeffC., Chevalier Y., Charlebois M., et al. Improvements in vertebral body strength under teriparatide treatment assessed in vivo by finite element analysis: results from the EUROFORS study. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24(10):1672-1680.
53. Treece G.M., Poole K.E., Gee A.H. Imaging the femoral cortex: thickness, density and mass from clinical CT. Med Image Anal 2012, 16(5):952-965.
54. Pahr D.H., Zysset P.K. A comparison of enhanced continuum FE with micro FE models of human vertebral bodies. J Biomech 2009, 42(4):455-462.
55. Zysset P.K., Curnier A. A 3D damage model for trabecular bone based on fabric tensors. J Biomech 1996, 29(12):1549-1558.
56. Roschger P., Fratzl P., Eschberger J., Klaushofer K. Validation of quantitative backscattered electron imaging for the measurement of mineral density distribution in human bone biopsies. Bone 1998, 23(4):319-326.
57. Wolfram U., Wilke H.J., Zysset P.K. Rehydration of vertebral trabecular bone: influences on its anisotropy, its stiffness and the indentation work with a view to age, gender and vertebral level. Bone 2010, 46(2):348-354.
58. Schaffler M.B., Choi K., Milgrom C. Aging and matrix microdamage accumulation in human compact bone. Bone 1995, 17(6):521-525.
59. Nyman J.S., Makowski A.J. The contribution of the extracellular matrix to the fracture resistance of bone. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2012, 10(2):169-177.
60. Fields A.J., Eswaran S.K., Jekir M.G., Keaveny T.M. Role of trabecular microarchitecture in whole-vertebral body biomechanical behavior. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24(9):1523-1530.
61. Wolfram U., Gross T., Pahr D.H., et al. Fabric-based Tsai-Wu yield criteria for vertebral trabecular bone in stress and strain space. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012, 15:218-228.
62. Kersh M.E., Zysset P.K., Pahr D.H., et al. Measurement of structural anisotropy in femoral trabecular bone using clinical-resolution CT images. J Biomech 2013, 46(15):2659-2666.
63. Gross T., Pahr D.H., Zysset P.K. Morphology-elasticity relationships using decreasing fabric information of human trabecular bone from three major anatomical locations. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2013, 12(4):793-800.
64. Homminga J., McCreadie B.R., Weinans H., Huiskes R. The dependence of the elastic properties of osteoporotic cancellous bone on volume fraction and fabric. J Biomech 2003, 36(10):1461-1467.
65. Kabel J., van Rietbergen B., Odgaard A., Huiskes R. Constitutive relationships of fabric, density, and elastic properties in cancellous bone architecture. Bone 1999, 25(4):481-486.
66. Odgaard A., Kabel J., van Rietbergen B., et al. Fabric and elastic principal directions of cancellous bone are closely related. J Biomech 1997, 30(5):487-495.
67. Dall'Ara E., Schmidt R., Pahr D., et al. A nonlinear finite element model validation study based on a novel experimental technique for inducing anterior wedge-shape fractures in human vertebral bodies in vitro. J Biomech 2010, 43(12):2374-2380.
68. Keyak J.H. Improved prediction of proximal femoral fracture load using nonlinear finite element models. Med Eng Phys 2001, 23(3):165-173.
69. Buckley J.M., Kuo C.C., Cheng L.C., et al. Relative strength of thoracic vertebrae in axial compression versus flexion. Spine J 2009, 9(6):478-485.
70. Chevalier Y., Zysset P.K. A patient-specific computer tomography-based finite element methodology to calculate the six dimensional stiffness matrix of human vertebral bodies. J Biomech Eng 2012, 134(5):051006.
71. Schileo E., Balistreri L., Grassi L., et al. To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?. J Biomech 2014, 47(14):3531-3538.
72. Laz P.J., Brown M. A review of probabilistic analysis in orthopaedic biomechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2010, 224(8):927-943.
73. Zysset P.K., Dall'ara E., Varga P., Pahr D.H. Finite element analysis for prediction of bone strength. Bonekey Rep 2013, 2:386.
74. Mawatari T., Miura H., Hamai S., et al. Vertebral strength changes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with alendronate, as assessed by finite element analysis of clinical computed tomography scans: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 58(11):3340-3349.
75. Cosman F., de Beur S.J., LeBoffM.S., et al. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2014, 25(10):2359-2381.
76. Lafferty F.W., Rowland D.Y. Correlations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and single photon absorptiometry with spinal and non-spinal fractures. Osteoporos Int 1996, 6(5):407-415.
77. Odvina C.V., Wergedal J.E., Libanati C.R., et al. Relationship between trabecular vertebral body density and fractures: a qualitative definition of spinal osteoporosis. Metabolism 1988, 37:221-228.
78. Felsenberg D., Gowin W. Radiologe 1999, 39(3):186-193.
79. Pickhardt P.J., Pooler B.D., Lauder T., et al. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158(8):588-595.
80. Papadakis A.E., Karantanas A.H., Papadokostakis G., et al. Can abdominal multi-detector CT diagnose spinal osteoporosis?. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(1):172-176.
81. Emohare O., Cagan A., Polly D.W., Gertner E. Opportunistic computed tomography screening shows a high incidence of osteoporosis in ankylosing spondylitis patients with acute vertebral fractures. J Clin Densitom 2015, 18(1):17-21.
82. Keaveny T.M., Bouxsein M.L. Theoretical implications of the biomechanical fracture threshold. J Bone Miner Res 2008, 23(10):1541-1547.
83. Cody D.D., Hou F.J., Divine G.W., Fyhrie D.P. Short term in vivo precision of proximal femoral finite element modeling. Ann Biomed Eng 2000, 28(4):408-414.
84. Cosman F., Keaveny T.M., Kopperdahl D., et al. Hip and spine strength effects of adding versus switching to teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with prior alendronate or raloxifene. J Bone Miner Res 2013, 28(6):1328-1336.
85. Keaveny T.M., McClung M.R., Genant H.K., et al. Femoral and vertebral strength improvements in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with denosumab. J Bone Miner Res 2014, 29(1):158-165.
86. Brixen K., Chapurlat R., Cheung A.M., et al. Bone density, turnover, and estimated strength in postmenopausal women treated with odanacatib: a randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013, 98(2):571-580.
87. Farahmand P., Marin F., Hawkins F., et al. Early changes in biochemical markers of bone formation during teriparatide therapy correlate with improvements in vertebral strength in men with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2013, 24(12):2971-2981.
88. Gerner B, Töpfer D, Museyko O, Engelke K. Impact of Segmentation in Quantitative Computed Tomography in Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2013. 2013. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
89. Lang T.F., Keyak J.H., Heitz M.W., et al. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: precision and relation to bone strength. Bone 1997, 21(1):101-108.
90. Li W., Sode M., Saeed I., Lang T. Automated registration of hip and spine for longitudinal QCT studies: integration with 3D densitometric and structural analysis. Bone 2006, 38(2):273-279.