A new material mapping procedure for quantitative computed tomography-based, continuum finite element analyses of the vertebra

wbldb

Unnikrishnan, Ginu U.¹; Morgan, Elise F.¹

A new material mapping procedure for quantitative computed tomography-based, continuum finite element analyses of the vertebra

J Biomech Eng. July 2011;133(7):071001

Affiliations

¹Orthopaedic and Developmental Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215
Abstract

Inaccuracies in the estimation of material properties and errors in the assignment of these properties into finite element models limit the reliability, accuracy, and precision of quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element analyses of the vertebra. In this work, a new mesh-independent, material mapping procedure was developed to improve the quality of predictions of vertebral mechanical behavior from QCT-based finite element models. In this procedure, an intermediate step, called the material block model, was introduced to determine the distribution of material properties based on bone mineral density, and these properties were then mapped onto the finite element mesh. A sensitivity study was first conducted on a calibration phantom to understand the influence of the size of the material blocks on the computed bone mineral density. It was observed that varying the material block size produced only marginal changes in the predictions of mineral density. finite element (FE) analyses were then conducted on a square column-shaped region of the vertebra and also on the entire vertebra in order to study the effect of material block size on the FE-derived outcomes. The predicted values of stiffness for the column and the vertebra decreased with decreasing block size. When these results were compared to those of a mesh convergence analysis, it was found that the influence of element size on vertebral stiffness was less than that of the material block size. This mapping procedure allows the material properties in a finite element study to be determined based on the block size required for an accurate representation of the material field, while the size of the finite elements can be selected independently and based on the required numerical accuracy of the finite element solution. The mesh-independent, material mapping procedure developed in this study could be particularly helpful in improving the accuracy of finite element analyses of vertebroplasty and spine metastases, as these analyses typically require mesh refinement at the interfaces between distinct materials. Moreover, the mapping procedure is not specific to the vertebra and could thus be applied to many other anatomic sites.
History

Received: 2010-07-22

Accepted: 2011-03-27

Online: 2011-05-09

Published: 2011-07-13

Cited Works (22)

Year	Entry
1998	Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. Computed tomography-based finite element analysis predicts failure loads and fracture patterns for vertebral sections. J Orthop Res. May 1998;16(3):300-308.
2004	Taddei F, Pancanti A, Viceconti M. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys. 2004;26(1):61-69.
2008	Jones AC, Wilcox RK. Finite element analysis of the spine: towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis. Med Eng Phys. December 2008;30(10):1287-1304.
2007	Keaveny TM, Donley DW, Hoffmann PF, Mitlak BH, Glass EV, San Martin JA. 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. January 2007;22(1):149-157.
2003	Liebschner MAK, Kopperdahl DL, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine. Spine. March 15, 2003;28(6):559-565.
2002	Kopperdahl DL, Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Orthop Res. July 2002;20(4):801-805.
1987	Mosekilde L, Mosekilde L, Danielsen CC. Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. Bone. 1987;8(2):79-85.
1999	Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A, Rüegsegger P. The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone. 1999;25(1):55-60.
1991	Faulkner KG, Cann CE, Hasegawa BH. Effect of bone distribution on vertebral strength: assessment with patient-specific nonlinear finite element analysis. Radiology. June 1991;179(3):669-674.
2007	Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joskowicz L, Milgrom C. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. J Biomech Eng. June 2007;129(3):297-309.
2001	Homminga J, Weinans H, Gowin W, Felsenberg D, Huiskes R. Ostehoporosis changes the amount of vertebral trabecular bone at risk of fracture but not the vertebral load distribution. Spine. July 2001;26(14):1555-1560.
1998	Zannoni C, Mantovani R, Viceconti M. Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Med Eng Phys. December 1998;20(10):735-740.
1985	Adams MA, Hutton WC. The effect of posture on the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg. August 1985;67B(4):625-629.
2007	Yosibash Z, Trabelsi N, Milgrom C. Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J Biomech. 2007;40(16):3688-3699.
2007	Buckley JM, Loo K, Motherway J. Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone. March 2007;40(3):767-774.
2010	Chen G, Schmutz B, Epari D, Rathnayaka K, Ibrahim S, Schuetz MA, Pearcy MJ. A new approach for assigning bone material properties from CT images into finite element models. J Biomech. 2010;43(5):1011-1015.
1996	Merz B, Niederer P, Müller R, Rüegsegger P. Automated finite element analysis of excised human femora based on precision-QCT. J Biomech Eng. August 1996;118(3):387-390.
2003	Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone. 2003;33(4):744-750.
2001	Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech. 2001;34(5):569-577.
2007	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.
2003	Whyne CM, Hu SS, Lotz JC. Burst fracture in the metastatically involved spine: development, validation, and parametric analysis of a three-dimensional poroelastic finite-element model. Spine. April 1, 2003;28(7):652-660.
1990	Keyak JH, Meagher JM, Skinner HB, Mote CD Jr. Automated three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone: a new method. J Biomed Eng. 1990;12(5):389-397.

Cited By (4)

Year	Entry
2013	Hussein Ali AI. 3-D Visualization and Prediction of Spine Fractures Under Axial Loading [PhD thesis]. Boston University; 2013.
2015	Jackman TM. Prediction of Vertebral Fractures Under Axial Compression and Anterior Flexion [PhD thesis]. Boston University; 2015.
2018	Hosseini Kalajahi SM. Addressing Partial Volume Artifacts With Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Modeling of the Human Proximal Tibia [Master's thesis]. University of Saskatchewan; April 2018.
2019	Knowles NK. Improving Material Mapping in Glenohumeral Finite Element Models: A Multi-Level Evaluation [PhD thesis]. University of Western Ontario; 2019.