Cargando…

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

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 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eggermont, Florieke, Derikx, Loes C., Free, Jeffrey, van Leeuwen, Ruud, van der Linden, Yvette M., Verdonschot, Nico, Tanck, Esther
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23890
_version_ 1783352274872958976
author Eggermont, Florieke
Derikx, Loes C.
Free, Jeffrey
van Leeuwen, Ruud
van der Linden, Yvette M.
Verdonschot, Nico
Tanck, Esther
author_facet Eggermont, Florieke
Derikx, Loes C.
Free, Jeffrey
van Leeuwen, Ruud
van der Linden, Yvette M.
Verdonschot, Nico
Tanck, Esther
author_sort Eggermont, Florieke
collection PubMed
description 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 36:2288–2295, 2018.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6120464
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61204642018-09-05 Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models Eggermont, Florieke Derikx, Loes C. Free, Jeffrey van Leeuwen, Ruud van der Linden, Yvette M. Verdonschot, Nico Tanck, Esther J Orthop Res Research Articles 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 36:2288–2295, 2018. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-20 2018-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6120464/ /pubmed/29508905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23890 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Eggermont, Florieke
Derikx, Loes C.
Free, Jeffrey
van Leeuwen, Ruud
van der Linden, Yvette M.
Verdonschot, Nico
Tanck, Esther
Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title_full Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title_fullStr Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title_short Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
title_sort effect of different ct scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23890
work_keys_str_mv AT eggermontflorieke effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT derikxloesc effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT freejeffrey effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT vanleeuwenruud effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT vanderlindenyvettem effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT verdonschotnico effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels
AT tanckesther effectofdifferentctscannersandsettingsonfemoralfailureloadscalculatedbyfiniteelementmodels