2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.05.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accounting for spatial variation of trabecular anisotropy with subject-specific finite element modeling moderately improves predictions of local subchondral bone stiffness at the proximal tibia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such models, however, disregard the intra-specimen spatial distribution of material properties and also the subtle geometric difference between subjects. QCT-FE models of subchondral bone have recently been developed to monitor alterations of local structural stiffness at the subchondral surface non-invasively and subject-specifically (Nazemi et al, 2015(Nazemi et al, , 2017. In such models, the QCT provides information regarding the geometry and density of the imaged bone whereas FE calculates the integral contribution of all factors involved in the structural stiffness sensed at the subchondral surface.…”
Section: Fe Models Of Subchondral Bone Changes In Oamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such models, however, disregard the intra-specimen spatial distribution of material properties and also the subtle geometric difference between subjects. QCT-FE models of subchondral bone have recently been developed to monitor alterations of local structural stiffness at the subchondral surface non-invasively and subject-specifically (Nazemi et al, 2015(Nazemi et al, , 2017. In such models, the QCT provides information regarding the geometry and density of the imaged bone whereas FE calculates the integral contribution of all factors involved in the structural stiffness sensed at the subchondral surface.…”
Section: Fe Models Of Subchondral Bone Changes In Oamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such relationships consider bone as a simplified isotropic material since clinical imaging systems do not accurately reveal the microstructural details of the bone necessary to reflect its true anisotropic behaviour. Attempts to extract anisotropic material models from the clinical CT data revealed subtle improvements in the FEM predictions while imposing higher modelling costs [21,22]. Furthermore, the mechanical properties of bone, including the elastic modulus, depend on the anatomic site as well.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the recent years, new kinds of CT technologies have been studied to evaluate bone micro-architecture (and then bone strength) to assess the risk of bone fractures; in particular finite element modeling (FEM) and multi-detector CT (MDCT) have shown their importance in the evaluation of BMD even in other regions besides lumbar spine, such as the hip; the quantification of BMD with this technique has been correlated to the increased risk of fracture in osteoporotic patients, showing a good correlation (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%