» Articles » PMID: 29508905

Effect of Different CT Scanners and Settings on Femoral Failure Loads Calculated by Finite Element Models

Overview
Journal J Orthop Res
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2018 Mar 7
PMID 29508905
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In a multi-center patient study, using different CT scanners, CT-based finite element (FE) models are utilized to calculate failure loads of femora with metastases. Previous studies showed that using different CT scanners can result in different outcomes. This study aims to quantify the effects of (i) different CT scanners; (ii) different CT protocols with variations in slice thickness, field of view (FOV), and reconstruction kernel; and (iii) air between calibration phantom and patient, on Hounsfield Units (HU), bone mineral density (BMD), and FE failure load. Six cadaveric femora were scanned on four CT scanners. Scans were made with multiple CT protocols and with or without an air gap between the body model and calibration phantom. HU and calibrated BMD were determined in cortical and trabecular regions of interest. Non-linear isotropic FE models were constructed to calculate failure load. Mean differences between CT scanners varied up to 7% in cortical HU, 6% in trabecular HU, 6% in cortical BMD, 12% in trabecular BMD, and 17% in failure load. Changes in slice thickness and FOV had little effect (≤4%), while reconstruction kernels had a larger effect on HU (16%), BMD (17%), and failure load (9%). Air between the body model and calibration phantom slightly decreased the HU, BMD, and failure loads (≤8%). In conclusion, this study showed that quantitative analysis of CT images acquired with different CT scanners, and particularly reconstruction kernels, can induce relatively large differences in HU, BMD, and failure loads. Additionally, if possible, air artifacts should be avoided. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res.

Citing Articles

Asynchronous calibration of a CT scanner for bone mineral density estimation: sources of error and correction.

Dudle A, Ith M, Egli R, Heverhagen J, Gugler Y, Wapp C JBMR Plus. 2024; 8(9):ziae096.

PMID: 39183821 PMC: 11344033. DOI: 10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae096.


Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration.

Szyszko J, Aldieri A, La Mattina A, Viceconti M PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0305474.

PMID: 38875268 PMC: 11178222. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305474.


An analytical model of lateral condylar plate working length.

Roytman G, Beitler B, LaMonica J, Spero M, Toy K, Ramji A Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2023; 110:106129.

PMID: 37871506 PMC: 10848195. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.106129.


The application of an isotropic crushable foam model to predict the femoral fracture risk.

Soltanihafshejani N, Peroni F, Toniutti S, Bitter T, Tanck E, Eggermont F PLoS One. 2023; 18(7):e0288776.

PMID: 37498946 PMC: 10374151. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288776.


Reconstruction of massive bone defects after femoral tumor resection using two new-designed 3D-printed intercalary prostheses: a clinical analytic study with the cooperative utilization of multiple technologies.

Shao X, Dou M, Yang Q, Li J, Zhang A, Yao Y BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):67.

PMID: 36698116 PMC: 9875495. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06171-w.


References
1.
Tanck E, van Aken J, van der Linden Y, Schreuder H, Binkowski M, Huizenga H . Pathological fracture prediction in patients with metastatic lesions can be improved with quantitative computed tomography based computer models. Bone. 2009; 45(4):777-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.06.009. View

2.
Eggermont F, Derikx L, Verdonschot N, Hannink G, Kaatee R, Tanck E . Limited short-term effect of palliative radiation therapy on quantitative computed tomography-derived bone mineral density in femora with metastases. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017; 2(1):53-61. PMC: 5514233. DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2016.11.001. View

3.
Keyak J, Kaneko T, Rossi S, Pejcic M, Tehranzadeh J, Skinner H . Predicting the strength of femoral shafts with and without metastatic lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 439:161-70. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000174736.50964.3b. View

4.
Keyak J, Kaneko T, Tehranzadeh J, Skinner H . Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (437):219-28. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000164400.37905.22. View

5.
Dragomir-Daescu D, Salas C, Uthamaraj S, Rossman T . Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis predictions of femoral strength and stiffness depend on computed tomography settings. J Biomech. 2014; 48(1):153-61. PMC: 4291173. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.09.016. View