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。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS Journal of biomechanics Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112426
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,&nbsp;Sarah Quayyum,&nbsp;Jonathan Ying,&nbsp;Chloe Stiles,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Sarah Quayyum,&nbsp;Jonathan Ying,&nbsp;Chloe Stiles,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

单能量定量计算机断层扫描(SEQCT)为骨分析和基于图像的有限元模型(FEM)输入提供了体积骨矿物质密度(vBMD)测量值。双能量 CT(DECT)通过利用多种 X 射线能量扫描来考虑特定体素的材料变化,从而改善了 vBMD。本研究比较了用两种常见内核重建的 SEQCT 和 DECT 图像得出的 vBMD 和 FEM 硬度。使用标准(STD)和骨加(BONE)内核采集了尸体肩部(n = 10)的 SEQCT 和 DECT 图像。使用特定标本校准将 Hounsfield 单位转换为 vBMD。DECT STD 和 BONE 图像是使用 40 和 90 keV 模拟单色图像的既定材料分解方法生成的。解剖颈部以下的肱骨近端截面用于 vBMD 分析和有限元模型生成。有限元加载到 1%的表观应变,用于刚度测量。在 STD 和骨核图像之间,SEQCT 和 DECT 图像的平均 vBMD 分别相差 0.9 毫克 K2HPO4/cc 和 4.1 毫克 K2HPO4/cc。DECT 图像存在显著差异(p = 0.001)。在 SEQCT 和 DECT 图像中,骨重建图像的 vBMD 测量值更高。在基于 SEQCT 和 DECT 的有限元模型中,STD 和 BONE 之间的差异持续存在,BONE 模型的估计硬度更大。在六个模型中,使用相同的核,基于 DECT 的模型比基于 SEQCT 的模型具有更高的硬度,尽管这些模型在 STD 和 BONE 核之间存在差异。在不同的图像类型中,STD 和 BONE 衍生模型之间的硬度差异相似(DECT:17.5 kN/mm;SEQCT:19.0 kN/mm)。在 SECT 内核以及 SEQCT BONE 和 DECT STD 模型之间,刚度值存在明显差异。这项研究表明,仅基于 CT 的成像参数会导致 vBMD 和 FEM 硬度出现重大差异。这些结果表明,vBMD 分析和有限元模型输入应使用一致的成像参数,以避免系统性测量误差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Efficient development of subject-specific finite element knee models: Automated identification of soft-tissue attachments The aging Achilles tendon: model-predicted changes in calf muscle neuromechanics Lumbopelvic rhythm analysis by quartiles: Identification of differences in lumbar and pelvic contribution during trunk flexion and extension in subjects with low back pain of different origin. A case-control study Effects of knee joint position on the triceps Suræ torque-size relationship during plantarflexion in healthy young adults Differential T2* changes in tibialis anterior and soleus: Influence of exercise type and perceived exertion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1