How to select the elastic modulus for cancellous bone in patient-specific continuum models of the spine

Patient-specific finite element (FE) modelling is a promising technology that is expected to support clinical assessment of the spine in the near future. To allow rapid, robust and economic patient-specific modelling of the whole spine or of large spine segments, it is practicable to consider vertebral cancellous bone in the spine as a continuum material, but the elastic modulus of that continuum material must reflect the quality of the individual vertebral bone. A numerical parametric model of lattice trabecular architecture has been developed for determining the apparent elastic modulus of cancellous bone Ecb in vertebrae. The model inputs were apparent morphological parameters (trabecular thickness TbTh and trabecular separation TbSp) and the bone mineral density (BMD), which can all be measuredin vivo, using the spatial resolution of current clinical quantitative computed tomography (QCT) commercial whole-body scanners. The model predicted that Ecb values between 30 and 110 MPa represent normal morphology and BMD of human spinal cancellous bone. The present Ecb to TbTh, TbSp and BMD relationships pave the way for automatic generation of patientspecific continuum FE spine models that consider the individual's osteoporotic or other degenerative condition of cancellous bone.

[1]  T S Smith,et al.  Three‐dimensional microimaging (MRμI and μCT), finite element modeling, and rapid prototyping provide unique insights into bone architecture in osteoporosis , 2001, The Anatomical record.

[2]  T. Einhorn,et al.  Biomechanics of Bone , 2002 .

[3]  M. Pope,et al.  The clinical relevance of biomechanics. , 1999, Neurologic clinics.

[4]  Hwj Rik Huiskes,et al.  Trabecular Bone Tissue Strains in the Healthy and Osteoporotic Human Femur , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[5]  Matthew J. Silva,et al.  Bone loss following tendon laceration, repair and passive mobilization , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[6]  Yi-Xian Qin,et al.  Interrelationship of trabecular mechanical and microstructural properties in sheep trabecular bone. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Correlation of Trabecular Bone Structure with Age, Bone Mineral Density, and Osteoporotic Status: In Vivo Studies in the Distal Radius Using High Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 1997, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[8]  J S Thomsen,et al.  Age‐ and Gender‐Related Differences in Vertebral Bone Mass, Density, and Strength , 1999, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[9]  M J Fagan,et al.  Finite element analysis in spine research , 2002, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[10]  D. Carter,et al.  A unifying principle relating stress to trabecular bone morphology , 1986, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[11]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Biomechanics of the aging spine , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[12]  P. Rüegsegger,et al.  Cancellous bone structure: analysis of high-resolution CT images with the run-length method. , 1991, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  D P Fyhrie,et al.  Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  H. Genant,et al.  Image-Based Assessment of Spinal Trabecular Bone Structure from High-Resolution CT Images , 1998, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  Jesper Skovhus Thomsen,et al.  Zone-dependent changes in human vertebral trabecular bone: clinical implications. , 2002, Bone.

[16]  R. Pidaparti,et al.  Cancellous bone architecture: advantages of nonorthogonal trabecular alignment under multidirectional joint loading. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  J A McGeough,et al.  Age-Related Changes in the Compressive Strength of Cancellous Bone. The Relative Importance of Changes in Density and Trabecular Architecture* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Magnetic resonance evaluation of the interrelationship between articular cartilage and trabecular bone of the osteoarthritic knee. , 2004, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[19]  R. Huiskes,et al.  A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  Margareta Nordin,et al.  Basic Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal Systm , 1989 .

[21]  M H Pope,et al.  Biomechanics of the lumbar spine. , 1989, Annals of medicine.

[22]  Guo X. Edward,et al.  Is Trabecular Bone Tissue Different from Cortical Bone Tissue , 1998 .

[23]  Laurence Vico,et al.  Noninvasive In Vivo Monitoring of Bone Architecture Alterations in Hindlimb‐Unloaded Female Rats Using Novel Three‐Dimensional Microcomputed Tomography , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[24]  W H Harris,et al.  Limitations of the continuum assumption in cancellous bone. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  R. Zernicke,et al.  Early regional adaptation of periarticular bone mineral density after anterior cruciate ligament injury. , 2000, Journal of applied physiology.

[26]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[27]  P. Rüegsegger,et al.  In vivo high resolution 3D-QCT of the human forearm. , 1998, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[28]  P Rüegsegger,et al.  Tissue stresses and strain in trabeculae of a canine proximal femur can be quantified from computer reconstructions. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[29]  Tony M Keaveny,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models of the human lumbar vertebral body: effect of element size on stiffness, damage, and fracture strength predictions. , 2003, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[30]  D Mitton,et al.  Mechanical properties of ewe vertebral cancellous bone compared with histomorphometry and high-resolution computed tomography parameters. , 1998, Bone.

[31]  A. Gefen,et al.  Single-trabecula building block for large-scale finite element models of cancellous bone , 2004, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[32]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. , 2003, Bone.

[33]  K. Aoki,et al.  A Simple Murine Model for Immobilization Osteopenia , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[34]  David P Fyhrie,et al.  The effect of microcomputed tomography scanning and reconstruction voxel size on the accuracy of stereological measurements in human cancellous bone. , 2004, Bone.