MDCT-based Finite Element Analysis of Vertebral Fracture Risk: What Dose is Needed?
- 98 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare vertebral failure loads, predicted from finite element (FE) analysis of patients with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) at virtually reduced dose levels, compared to standard-dose exposure from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging and evaluate whether ultra-low dose derived FE analysis can still differentiate patient groups.
Materials and Methods
An institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained for this retrospective study. A total of 16 patients were evaluated at standard-dose MDCT; eight with and eight without OVF. Images were reconstructed at virtually reduced dose levels (i. e. half, quarter and tenth of the standard dose). Failure load was determined at L1–3 from FE analysis and compared between standard, half, quarter, and tenth doses and used to differentiate between fracture and control groups.
Failure load derived at standard dose (3254 ± 909 N and 3794 ± 984 N) did not significantly differ from half (3390 ± 890 N and 3860 ± 1063 N) and quarter dose (3375 ± 915 N and 3925 ± 990 N) but was significantly higher for one tenth dose (4513 ± 1762 N and 4766 ± 1628 N) for fracture and control groups, respectively. Failure load differed significantly between the two groups at standard, half and quarter doses, but not at tenth dose. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis also demonstrated that standard, half, and quarter doses can significantly differentiate the fracture from the control group.
The use of MDCT enables a dose reduction of at least 75% compared to standard-dose for an adequate prediction of vertebral failure load based on non-invasive FE analysis.
KeywordsMultidetector computed tomography Radiation dosage Spinal fractures Finite element analysis Osteoporosis
This study received funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) BA 4906/2-1 (TB), and TUM Faculty of Medicine KKF grant H01 (TB).
Conflict of interest
D. Anitha, K. Mei, M. Dieckmeyer, F.K. Kopp, N. Sollmann, C. Zimmer, J.S. Kirschke, P.B. Noel, T. Baum and K. Subburaj declare that they have no competing interests.
- 3.Wang X, Sanyal A, Cawthon PM, Palermo L, Jekir M, Christensen J, Ensrud KE, Cummings SR, Orwoll E, Black DM; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Research Group, Keaveny TM. Prediction of new clinical vertebral fractures in elderly men using finite element analysis of CT scans. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:808–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Anitha D, Subburaj K, Baum T, Kirschke JS. Vertebral stability in multiple myeloma patients: a finite-element study. European Orthopaedic Research Society 24th Annual Meeting; Bologna, Italy. 2016.Google Scholar
- 8.Liebl H, Garcia EG, Holzner F, Noel PB, Burgkart R, Rummeny EJ, Baum T, Bauer JS. In-vivo assessment of femoral bone strength using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) based on routine MDCT imaging: a preliminary study on patients with vertebral fractures. PLoS One. 2015;10:e116907.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Mei K, Kopp FK, Bippus R, Köhler T, Schwaiger BJ, Gersing AS, Fehringer A, Sauter A, Münzel D, Pfeiffer F, Rummeny EJ, Kirschke JS, Noël PB, Baum T. Is multidetector CT-based bone mineral density and quantitative bone microstructure assessment at the spine still feasible using ultra-low tube current and sparse sampling? Eur Radiol. 2017;27:5261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar