Cargando…
A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases
According to the US Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common form of head injury. Medical imaging data provides clinical insight into tissue damage/injury and injury severity, and helps medic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34277581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.654677 |
_version_ | 1783722630107365376 |
---|---|
author | Tan, X. Gary Sajja, Venkata Siva Sai Sujith D’Souza, Maria M. Gupta, Raj K. Long, Joseph B. Singh, Ajay K. Bagchi, Amit |
author_facet | Tan, X. Gary Sajja, Venkata Siva Sai Sujith D’Souza, Maria M. Gupta, Raj K. Long, Joseph B. Singh, Ajay K. Bagchi, Amit |
author_sort | Tan, X. Gary |
collection | PubMed |
description | According to the US Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common form of head injury. Medical imaging data provides clinical insight into tissue damage/injury and injury severity, and helps medical diagnosis. Computational modeling and simulation can predict the biomechanical characteristics of such injury, and are useful for development of protective equipment. Integration of techniques from computational biomechanics with medical data assessment modalities (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) has not yet been used to predict injury, support early medical diagnosis, or assess effectiveness of personal protective equipment. This paper presents a methodology to map computational simulations with clinical data for interpreting blunt impact TBI utilizing two clinically different head injury case studies. MRI modalities, such as T1, T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), were used for simulation comparisons. The two clinical cases have been reconstructed using finite element analysis to predict head biomechanics based on medical reports documented by a clinician. The findings are mapped to simulation results using image-based clinical analyses of head impact injuries, and modalities that could capture simulation results have been identified. In case 1, the MRI results showed lesions in the brain with skull indentation, while case 2 had lesions in both coup and contrecoup sides with no skull deformation. Simulation data analyses show that different biomechanical measures and thresholds are needed to explain different blunt impact injury modalities; specifically, strain rate threshold corresponds well with brain injury with skull indentation, while minimum pressure threshold corresponds well with coup–contrecoup injury; and DWI has been found to be the most appropriate modality for MRI data interpretation. As the findings from these two cases are substantiated with additional clinical studies, this methodology can be broadly applied as a tool to support injury assessment in head trauma events and to improve countermeasures (e.g., diagnostics and protective equipment design) to mitigate these injuries. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8280347 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82803472021-07-16 A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases Tan, X. Gary Sajja, Venkata Siva Sai Sujith D’Souza, Maria M. Gupta, Raj K. Long, Joseph B. Singh, Ajay K. Bagchi, Amit Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology According to the US Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common form of head injury. Medical imaging data provides clinical insight into tissue damage/injury and injury severity, and helps medical diagnosis. Computational modeling and simulation can predict the biomechanical characteristics of such injury, and are useful for development of protective equipment. Integration of techniques from computational biomechanics with medical data assessment modalities (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) has not yet been used to predict injury, support early medical diagnosis, or assess effectiveness of personal protective equipment. This paper presents a methodology to map computational simulations with clinical data for interpreting blunt impact TBI utilizing two clinically different head injury case studies. MRI modalities, such as T1, T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), were used for simulation comparisons. The two clinical cases have been reconstructed using finite element analysis to predict head biomechanics based on medical reports documented by a clinician. The findings are mapped to simulation results using image-based clinical analyses of head impact injuries, and modalities that could capture simulation results have been identified. In case 1, the MRI results showed lesions in the brain with skull indentation, while case 2 had lesions in both coup and contrecoup sides with no skull deformation. Simulation data analyses show that different biomechanical measures and thresholds are needed to explain different blunt impact injury modalities; specifically, strain rate threshold corresponds well with brain injury with skull indentation, while minimum pressure threshold corresponds well with coup–contrecoup injury; and DWI has been found to be the most appropriate modality for MRI data interpretation. As the findings from these two cases are substantiated with additional clinical studies, this methodology can be broadly applied as a tool to support injury assessment in head trauma events and to improve countermeasures (e.g., diagnostics and protective equipment design) to mitigate these injuries. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8280347/ /pubmed/34277581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.654677 Text en Copyright © 2021 Tan, Sajja, D’Souza, Gupta, Long, Singh and Bagchi. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Bioengineering and Biotechnology Tan, X. Gary Sajja, Venkata Siva Sai Sujith D’Souza, Maria M. Gupta, Raj K. Long, Joseph B. Singh, Ajay K. Bagchi, Amit A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title | A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title_full | A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title_fullStr | A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title_full_unstemmed | A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title_short | A Methodology to Compare Biomechanical Simulations With Clinical Brain Imaging Analysis Utilizing Two Blunt Impact Cases |
title_sort | methodology to compare biomechanical simulations with clinical brain imaging analysis utilizing two blunt impact cases |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34277581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.654677 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tanxgary amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT sajjavenkatasivasaisujith amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT dsouzamariam amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT guptarajk amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT longjosephb amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT singhajayk amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT bagchiamit amethodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT tanxgary methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT sajjavenkatasivasaisujith methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT dsouzamariam methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT guptarajk methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT longjosephb methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT singhajayk methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases AT bagchiamit methodologytocomparebiomechanicalsimulationswithclinicalbrainimaginganalysisutilizingtwobluntimpactcases |