Display options
Cite
Eggermont F, Derikx LC, Free J, et al. Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models. J Orthop Res. 2018;doi: 10.1002/jor.23890.
Eggermont, F., Derikx, L. C., Free, J., van Leeuwen, R., van der Linden, Y. M., Verdonschot, N., & Tanck, E. (2018). Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models. Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, . https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23890
Eggermont, Florieke, et al. "Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models." Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society vol. (2018). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23890
Eggermont F, Derikx LC, Free J, van Leeuwen R, van der Linden YM, Verdonschot N, Tanck E. Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models. J Orthop Res. 2018 Mar 06; doi: 10.1002/jor.23890. Epub 2018 Mar 06. PMID: 29508905; PMCID: PMC6120464.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Orthop Res. 2018 Mar 06; doi: 10.1002/jor.23890. Epub 2018 Mar 06.

Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models.

Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society

Florieke Eggermont, Loes C Derikx, Jeffrey Free, Ruud van Leeuwen, Yvette M van der Linden, Nico Verdonschot, Esther Tanck

Affiliations

  1. 611 Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
  2. Radiotherapeutic Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
  4. Department of Radiotherapy, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  5. Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  6. Laboratory of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

PMID: 29508905 PMCID: PMC6120464 DOI: 10.1002/jor.23890

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.

© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

Keywords: CT protocol; CT scanner; failure load; femur; finite element model

References

  1. Bone. 2009 Oct;45(4):777-83 - PubMed
  2. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;2(1):53-61 - PubMed
  3. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Oct;439:161-70 - PubMed
  4. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Aug;(437):219-28 - PubMed
  5. J Biomech. 2015 Jan 2;48(1):153-61 - PubMed
  6. J Orthop Res. 2015 Aug;33(8):1226-34 - PubMed
  7. Med Eng Phys. 2014 Oct;36(10):1225-32 - PubMed
  8. Comput Radiol. 1983 May-Jun;7(3):199-203 - PubMed
  9. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Aug;94(8):1135-42 - PubMed
  10. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jan 21;55(2):N57-62 - PubMed
  11. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 2007 Jan;242(1):109-19 - PubMed
  13. J Biomech Eng. 2015 Nov;137(11):114502 - PubMed
  14. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982 Sep;139(3):443-7 - PubMed
  15. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 May;86(4):566-73 - PubMed
  16. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 7;55(17):5123-35 - PubMed
  17. J Biomech Eng. 2016 Sep 1;138(9): - PubMed
  18. J Digit Imaging. 1989 Feb;2(1):31-8 - PubMed
  19. Bone Joint Res. 2018 Jul 7;7(6):430-439 - PubMed
  20. Front Neuroinform. 2014 Jan 16;7:50 - PubMed
  21. Radiother Oncol. 2003 Oct;69(1):21-31 - PubMed

Publication Types