Experimental testing and biomechanical CT analysis of Chinese cadaveric vertebrae with different modeling approaches

Yi, Wei; Feng, Wentian; Li, Guanghui; Li, Zuchang; Liu, Zaiwei; Cheng, Xiaoguang; Yang, Haisheng

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.05.008

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The density-modulus relationship was directly adopted from a previous study where mechanical testing was conducted on vertebral bone of white subjects; thus, the predictive abilities of our QCT-FEA models for stiffness are well validated [ 22 , 29 , 30 ]. VS was defined as the ratio of the applied force (700 N) and its resulted displacement at the superior reference point, reflecting the ability of vertebral body to resist fracture to some extent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirdly, only loads in two directions and only VS were analyzed in QCT-FEA, experimental results had not been verified in vivo, and only VS was analyzed without vertebral strength or follow-up of fracture probability. Experimental stiffness of the whole vertebral body was measured as the slope of the linear portion of the load–displacement curve, i.e., between 26 and 56% of the peak force, and experimental strength of the vertebral body was defined as the peak force at the load–displacement curve [ 22 ]. Through previous studies, the vertebral stiffness has a formula consistent with the results of the carcass analysis, and can also reflect the state of vertebral body [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experimental stiffness of the whole vertebral body was measured as the slope of the linear portion of the load–displacement curve, i.e., between 26 and 56% of the peak force, and experimental strength of the vertebral body was defined as the peak force at the load–displacement curve [ 22 ]. Through previous studies, the vertebral stiffness has a formula consistent with the results of the carcass analysis, and can also reflect the state of vertebral body [ 22 ]. Finally, this was a single-center study and the sample size of 70–80 years is slightly smaller.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Poisson’s ratio was set to 0.3, as commonly used in bone QCT-based finite element models [ 22 , 31 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous study showed that the force of 700 N represented approximately the upper limit of the linear portion of the load–displacement curve derived from all vertebral specimens in vitro cadaver experiment, and VS was defined as the ratio of the applied force (700 N) and its resulted displacement at the superior reference point [ 22 ]. VS when the load perpendicular to the upper edge of L1 was defined as VS-U, and the load perpendicular to the lower edge of L1 was defined as VS-L.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical analysis of vertebral wedge deformity in elderly women with quantitative CT-based finite element analysis

Liu

Cheng

Wang

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To explore the vertebral deformity angle (VD angle) of 1st lumbar vertebral body (L1) in elderly women, investigate the influence of VD on vertebral stiffness (VS) by biomechanical analysis using quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis (QCT-FEA). Methods Two hundred seventy eight participants were recruited, and underwent QCT scan. Measured VD angles of L1, and constructed QCT-FEA models of L1 with the minimum (0.59°), median (5.79°) and maximum (11.15°) VD angles, respectively. Loads in two directions were applied on the upper edge of L1 with a force of 700 N, and vertebral stiffness (VS) was defined as the ratio of 700 N and displacement at the superior reference point: (1) perpendicular to the upper edge of L1 (defined as VS-U); (2) perpendicular to the lower edge of L1(defined as VS-L). Results Age was very weak positively correlated with VD angle, moderate negatively correlated with vBMD, and moderate negatively correlated with VS (P < 0.05). VS-U was significantly different among three VD angles, so was VS-L (P < 0.001). VS-U was higher than VS-L in 5.79° and 11.15° VD angles (P < 0.05), however no difference in 0.59° VD angles (P > 0.10). Conclusions VD angle of L1 was slightly increased with age and not correlated with vBMD, and VS was moderate negatively correlated with age, showing that the vertebral body was more likely to fracture with aging. VS-U and VS-L were gradually decreased with the increase of VD angle, and VS-L was lower than VS-U with the increase of VD angle, which showed that vertebral body was more prone to fracture when the load was perpendicular to the lower edge of the vertebral body as the VD angle increasing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%