Comparison of Computed Tomography Based Parametric and Patient-Specific Finite Element Models of the Healthy and Metastatic Spine Using a Mesh-Morphing Algorithm

Study Design. A comparative analysis of parametric and patient-specific finite element (FE) modeling of spinal motion segments. Objectives. To develop patient-specific FE models of spinal motion segments using mesh-morphing methods applied to a parametric FE model. To compare strain and displacement patterns in parametric and morphed models for both healthy and metastatically involved vertebrae. Summary of Background Data. Parametric FE models may be limited in their ability to fully represent patient-specific geometries and material property distributions. Generation of multiple patient-specific FE models has been limited because of computational expense. Morphing methods have been successfully used to generate multiple specimen-specific FE models of caudal rat vertebrae. Methods. FE models of a healthy and a metastatic T6–T8 spinal motion segment were analyzed with and without patient-specific material properties. Parametric and morphed models were compared using a landmark-based morphing algorithm. Results. Morphing of the parametric FE model and including patient-specific material properties both had a strong impact on magnitudes and patterns of vertebral strain and displacement. Conclusion. Small but important geometric differences can be represented through morphing of parametric FE models. The mesh-morphing algorithm developed provides a rapid method for generating patient-specific FE models of spinal motion segments.

[1]  J. Meder,et al.  Spinal metastases with neurological manifestations. Review of 600 cases. , 1983, Journal of neurosurgery.

[2]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  A finite element study of a lumbar motion segment subjected to pure sagittal plane moments. , 1986, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  DAVID A. WONG,et al.  Spinal Metastases: The Obvious, the Occult, and the Impostors , 1990, Spine.

[4]  J Mizrahi,et al.  Finite element stress analysis of simulated metastatic lesions in the lumbar vertebral body. , 1992, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[5]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Poroelastic creep response analysis of a lumbar motion segment in compression. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  M Viceconti,et al.  Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. , 1999, Medical engineering & physics.

[7]  Y Payan,et al.  The mesh-matching algorithm: an automatic 3D mesh generator for finite element structures. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  Cari M Whyne,et al.  Burst Fracture in the Metastatically Involved Spine: Development, Validation, and Parametric Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Poroelastic Finite-Element Model , 2003, Spine.

[9]  Yohan Payan,et al.  Patient specific finite element model of the face soft tissues for computer-assisted maxillofacial surgery , 2003, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. , 2004, Medical engineering & physics.

[11]  C. Whyne,et al.  Biphasic Material Properties of Lytic Bone Metastases , 2000, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  C. Whyne,et al.  Metastatic Burst Fracture Risk Prediction Using Biomechanically Based Equations , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  C. Whyne,et al.  Effects of tumor location, shape and surface serration on burst fracture risk in the metastatic spine. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  C. Whyne,et al.  Metastatic Burst Fracture Risk Assessment Based on Complex Loading of the Thoracic Spine , 2006, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Mitsunori Tada,et al.  Geometric Modeling of Living Tissue for Subject-Specific Finite Element Analysis , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[16]  Barbara Reggiani,et al.  Finite-Element Modeling of Bones From CT Data: Sensitivity to Geometry and Material Uncertainties , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  C. Whyne,et al.  Quantitative characterization of metastatic disease in the spine. Part I. Semiautomated segmentation using atlas-based deformable registration and the level set method. , 2007, Medical physics.

[18]  Cari M Whyne,et al.  Biomechanics of vertebral level, geometry, and transcortical tumors in the metastatic spine. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  Michael Hardisty,et al.  Quantitative characterization of metastatic disease in the spine. Part II. Histogram-based analyses. , 2007, Medical physics.