Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017:2017:5707568.
doi: 10.1155/2017/5707568. Epub 2017 Jun 1.

Effects of Scan Resolutions and Element Sizes on Bovine Vertebral Mechanical Parameters from Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis

Meng Zhang  1 , Jiazi Gao  1 , Xu Huang  2 , He Gong  1 , Min Zhang  1 , Bei Liu  1
Affiliations

Effects of Scan Resolutions and Element Sizes on Bovine Vertebral Mechanical Parameters from Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis

Meng Zhang et al. J Healthc Eng. 2017.

Abstract

Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis (QCT/FEA) has been developed to predict vertebral strength. However, QCT/FEA models may be different with scan resolutions and element sizes. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of scan resolutions and element sizes on QCT/FEA outcomes. Nine bovine vertebral bodies were scanned using the clinical CT scanner and reconstructed from datasets with the two-slice thickness, that is, 0.6 mm (PA resolution) and 1 mm (PB resolution). There were significantly linear correlations between the predicted and measured principal strains (R2 > 0.7, P < 0.0001), and the predicted vertebral strength and stiffness were modestly correlated with the experimental values (R2 > 0.6, P < 0.05). Two different resolutions and six different element sizes were combined in pairs, and finite element (FE) models of bovine vertebral cancellous bones in the 12 cases were obtained. It showed that the mechanical parameters of FE models with the PB resolution were similar to those with the PA resolution. The computational accuracy of FE models with the element sizes of 0.41 × 0.41 × 0.6 mm3 and 0.41 × 0.41 × 1 mm3 was higher by comparing the apparent elastic modulus and yield strength. Therefore, scan resolution and element size should be chosen optimally to improve the accuracy of QCT/FEA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The QCT/FEA process of bovine vertebral bodies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Generation of bovine vertebral cancellous FE model from QCT dataset and illustration of the FE models in the 12 cases.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The linear regressions of two bovine vertebral bodies (model 1 and model 4) for principal strains estimated from the two resolution models as predictors of experimental principal strains.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The results of two bovine vertebral body QCT/FEA models (model 2 and model 5): load-displacement curves from the two resolution models (left column), von Mises stress distributions from QCT/FEA models with the PA resolution (middle column), and von Mises stress distributions from QCT/FEA models with the PB resolution (right column).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Correlation and consistent analysis between the two resolution models of nine bovine vertebral bodies for strength and stiffness. (a) Linear regression using the estimated strength of QCT/FEA models with the PB resolution as predictors for those with the PA resolution. (b) Linear regression using the estimated stiffness of QCT/FEA models with the PB resolution as predictors for those with the PA resolution. (c) Bland-Altman plot for strength. (d) Bland-Altman plot for stiffness.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Linear regressions of nine bovine vertebral bodies for strength and stiffness estimated from the two resolution models as predictors of experimentally measured values. (a) Strength. (b) Stiffness.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The von Mises stress distributions of the bovine vertebral cancellous FE model (model 3) in the 12 cases.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The stress-strain curves of two bovine vertebral cancellous FE models (model 1 and model 3) in the 12 cases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Si L., Winzenberg T. M., Chen M., Jiang Q., Palmer A. J. Residual lifetime and 10 year absolute risks of osteoporotic fractures in Chinese men and women. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2015;31(6):1149–1156. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1037729. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benhamou C. L. Effects of osteoporosis medications on bone quality. Joint, Bone, Spine. 2007;74(1):39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.06.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sone T., Tomomitsu T., Miyake M., Takeda N., Fukunaga M. Age-related changes in vertebral height ratios and vertebral fracture. Osteoporosis International. 1997;7(2):113–118. doi: 10.1007/BF01623685. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lochmüller E. M., Bürklein 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. doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(02)00792-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ammann P., Rizzoli R. Bone strength and its determinants. Osteoporosis International. 2003;14(Supplement 3):S13–S18. doi: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0170. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types