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 (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |