Nikolas K. Knowles, Sarah Quayyum, Jonathan Ying, Chloe Stiles, Daniel Beshay
{"title":"通过单能量和双能量 CT 重建内核建立基于图像的有限元模型刚度和 vBMD。","authors":"Nikolas K. Knowles, Sarah Quayyum, Jonathan Ying, Chloe Stiles, Daniel Beshay","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Single-energy quantitative computed tomography (SEQCT) provides volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) measures for bone analysis and input to image-based finite element models (FEMs). Dual-energy CT (DECT) improves vBMD by accounting for voxel-specific material variations utilizing scans at multiple x-ray energies. vBMD is also altered by reconstruction kernel that cannot be accounted for using calibration phantoms. This study compared vBMD and FEM stiffness derived from SEQCT and DECT images reconstructed with two common kernels. SEQCT and DECT images of cadaveric shoulders (n = 10) were collected using standard (STD) and boneplus (BONE) kernels. Hounsfield Units were converted to vBMD using specimen-specific calibrations. DECT STD and BONE images were generated using an established material decomposition method with 40 and 90 keV simulated monochromatic images. A proximal humerus bone section below the anatomic neck was used for vBMD analysis and FEM generation. FEMs were loaded to 1% apparent strain for stiffness measurements.</div><div>Between STD and BONE kernel images, average vBMD differed 0.9 mg<sub>K2HPO4</sub>/cc and 4.1 mg <sub>K2HPO4</sub>/cc, in SEQCT and DECT images, respectively. Significant differences occurred in DECT images (p = 0.001). BONE reconstructed images produced higher vBMD measures across both SEQCT and DECT images. The difference between STD and BONE in both SEQCT- and DECT-based FEMs persisted, with larger estimated stiffness in BONE models. For six of the models DECT-based had higher stiffness than SEQCT-based models using the same kernel, although these models differed between STD and BONE kernels. Differences in stiffness between STD and BONE derived models were similar across image types (DECT: 17.5 kN/mm; SEQCT: 19.0 kN/mm). Stiffness values were significantly different within SECT kernels and between SEQCT BONE and DECT STD models. This study shows important differences in vBMD and FEM stiffness that occur due to CT-based imaging parameters alone. These results indicate that consistent imaging parameters should be used for vBMD analysis and FEM input to avoid systematic measurement errors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 112426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Image-based finite element model stiffness and vBMD by single and dual energy CT reconstruction kernel\",\"authors\":\"Nikolas K. Knowles, Sarah Quayyum, Jonathan Ying, Chloe Stiles, Daniel Beshay\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Single-energy quantitative computed tomography (SEQCT) provides volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) measures for bone analysis and input to image-based finite element models (FEMs). Dual-energy CT (DECT) improves vBMD by accounting for voxel-specific material variations utilizing scans at multiple x-ray energies. vBMD is also altered by reconstruction kernel that cannot be accounted for using calibration phantoms. This study compared vBMD and FEM stiffness derived from SEQCT and DECT images reconstructed with two common kernels. SEQCT and DECT images of cadaveric shoulders (n = 10) were collected using standard (STD) and boneplus (BONE) kernels. Hounsfield Units were converted to vBMD using specimen-specific calibrations. DECT STD and BONE images were generated using an established material decomposition method with 40 and 90 keV simulated monochromatic images. A proximal humerus bone section below the anatomic neck was used for vBMD analysis and FEM generation. FEMs were loaded to 1% apparent strain for stiffness measurements.</div><div>Between STD and BONE kernel images, average vBMD differed 0.9 mg<sub>K2HPO4</sub>/cc and 4.1 mg <sub>K2HPO4</sub>/cc, in SEQCT and DECT images, respectively. Significant differences occurred in DECT images (p = 0.001). BONE reconstructed images produced higher vBMD measures across both SEQCT and DECT images. The difference between STD and BONE in both SEQCT- and DECT-based FEMs persisted, with larger estimated stiffness in BONE models. For six of the models DECT-based had higher stiffness than SEQCT-based models using the same kernel, although these models differed between STD and BONE kernels. Differences in stiffness between STD and BONE derived models were similar across image types (DECT: 17.5 kN/mm; SEQCT: 19.0 kN/mm). Stiffness values were significantly different within SECT kernels and between SEQCT BONE and DECT STD models. This study shows important differences in vBMD and FEM stiffness that occur due to CT-based imaging parameters alone. These results indicate that consistent imaging parameters should be used for vBMD analysis and FEM input to avoid systematic measurement errors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"177 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112426\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024005050\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024005050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Image-based finite element model stiffness and vBMD by single and dual energy CT reconstruction kernel
Single-energy quantitative computed tomography (SEQCT) provides volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) measures for bone analysis and input to image-based finite element models (FEMs). Dual-energy CT (DECT) improves vBMD by accounting for voxel-specific material variations utilizing scans at multiple x-ray energies. vBMD is also altered by reconstruction kernel that cannot be accounted for using calibration phantoms. This study compared vBMD and FEM stiffness derived from SEQCT and DECT images reconstructed with two common kernels. SEQCT and DECT images of cadaveric shoulders (n = 10) were collected using standard (STD) and boneplus (BONE) kernels. Hounsfield Units were converted to vBMD using specimen-specific calibrations. DECT STD and BONE images were generated using an established material decomposition method with 40 and 90 keV simulated monochromatic images. A proximal humerus bone section below the anatomic neck was used for vBMD analysis and FEM generation. FEMs were loaded to 1% apparent strain for stiffness measurements.
Between STD and BONE kernel images, average vBMD differed 0.9 mgK2HPO4/cc and 4.1 mg K2HPO4/cc, in SEQCT and DECT images, respectively. Significant differences occurred in DECT images (p = 0.001). BONE reconstructed images produced higher vBMD measures across both SEQCT and DECT images. The difference between STD and BONE in both SEQCT- and DECT-based FEMs persisted, with larger estimated stiffness in BONE models. For six of the models DECT-based had higher stiffness than SEQCT-based models using the same kernel, although these models differed between STD and BONE kernels. Differences in stiffness between STD and BONE derived models were similar across image types (DECT: 17.5 kN/mm; SEQCT: 19.0 kN/mm). Stiffness values were significantly different within SECT kernels and between SEQCT BONE and DECT STD models. This study shows important differences in vBMD and FEM stiffness that occur due to CT-based imaging parameters alone. These results indicate that consistent imaging parameters should be used for vBMD analysis and FEM input to avoid systematic measurement errors.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.