20 research outputs found

    Relation of vertebral deformities to bone density, structure, and strength.

    Get PDF
    Because they are not reliably discriminated by areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurements, it is unclear whether minimal vertebral deformities represent early osteoporotic fractures. To address this, we compared 90 postmenopausal women with no deformity (controls) with 142 women with one or more semiquantitative grade 1 (mild) deformities and 51 women with any grade 2-3 (moderate/severe) deformities. aBMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and geometry by quantitative computed tomography (QCT), bone microstructure by high-resolution peripheral QCT at the radius (HRpQCT), and vertebral compressive strength and load-to-strength ratio by finite-element analysis (FEA) of lumbar spine QCT images. Compared with controls, women with grade 1 deformities had significantly worse values for many bone density, structure, and strength parameters, although deficits all were much worse for the women with grade 2-3 deformities. Likewise, these skeletal parameters were more strongly associated with moderate to severe than with mild deformities by age-adjusted logistic regression. Nonetheless, grade 1 vertebral deformities were significantly associated with four of the five main variable categories assessed: bone density (lumbar spine vBMD), bone geometry (vertebral apparent cortical thickness), bone strength (overall vertebral compressive strength by FEA), and load-to-strength ratio (45-degree forward bending ÷ vertebral compressive strength). Thus significantly impaired bone density, structure, and strength compared with controls indicate that many grade 1 deformities do represent early osteoporotic fractures, with corresponding implications for clinical decision making

    Age-Dependence of Femoral Strength in White Women and Men

    Get PDF
    Although age-related variations in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and the prevalence of osteoporosis have been well characterized, there is a paucity of data on femoral strength in the population. Addressing this issue, we used finite-element analysis of quantitative computed tomographic scans to assess femoral strength in an age-stratified cohort of 362 women and 317 men, aged 21 to 89 years, randomly sampled from the population of Rochester, MN, and compared femoral strength with femoral neck aBMD. Percent reductions over adulthood were much greater for femoral strength (55% in women, 39% in men) than for femoral neck aBMD (26% in women, 21% in men), an effect that was accentuated in women. Notable declines in strength started in the mid-40s for women and one decade later for men. At advanced age, most of the strength deficit for women compared with men was a result of this decade-earlier onset of strength loss for women, this factor being more important than sex-related differences in peak bone strength and annual rates of bone loss. For both sexes, the prevalence of “low femoral strength” (<3000 N) was much higher than the prevalence of osteoporosis (femoral neck aBMD T-score of −2.5 or less). We conclude that age-related declines in femoral strength are much greater than suggested by age-related declines in femoral neck aBMD. Further, far more of the elderly may be at high risk of hip fracture because of low femoral strength than previously assumed based on the traditional classification of osteoporosis. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

    Femoral and vertebral strength improvements in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with denosumab

    Get PDF
    In the randomized, placebo-controlled FREEDOM study of women aged 60 to 90 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis, treatment with denosumab once every 6 months for 36 months significantly reduced hip and new vertebral fracture risk by 40% and 68%, respectively. To gain further insight into this efficacy, we performed a nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) of hip and spine quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans to estimate hip and spine strength in a subset of FREEDOM subjects (n=48 placebo; n=51 denosumab) at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months. We found that, compared with baseline, the finite element estimates of hip strength increased from 12 months (5.3%; p<0.0001) and through 36 months (8.6%; p<0.0001) in the denosumab group. For the placebo group, hip strength did not change at 12 months and decreased at 36 months (-5.6%; p<0.0001). Similar changes were observed at the spine: strength increased by 18.2% at 36 months for the denosumab group (p<0.0001) and decreased by -4.2% for the placebo group (p=0.002). At 36 months, hip and spine strength increased for the denosumab group compared with the placebo group by 14.3% (p<0.0001) and 22.4% (p<0.0001), respectively. Further analysis of the finite element models indicated that strength associated with the trabecular bone was lost at the hip and spine in the placebo group, whereas strength associated with both the trabecular and cortical bone improved in the denosumab group. In conclusion, treatment with denosumab increased hip and spine strength as estimated by FEA of QCT scans compared with both baseline and placebo owing to positive treatment effects in both the trabecular and cortical bone compartments. These findings provide insight into the mechanism by which denosumab reduces fracture risk for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

    Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Polyurethane (PU) foam is widely used as a model for cancellous bone. The higher density foams are used as standard biomechanical test materials, but none of the low density PU foams are universally accepted as models for osteoporotic (OP) bone. The aim of this study was to determine whether low density PU foam might be suitable for mimicking human OP cancellous bone.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Quasi-static compression tests were performed on PU foam cylinders of different lengths (3.9 and 7.7 mm) and of different densities (0.09, 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm<sup>-3</sup>), to determine the Young's modulus, yield strength and energy absorbed to yield.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Young's modulus values were 0.08–0.93 MPa for the 0.09 g.cm<sup>-3 </sup>foam and from 15.1–151.4 MPa for the 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm<sup>-3 </sup>foam. Yield strength values were 0.01–0.07 MPa for the 0.09 g.cm<sup>-3 </sup>foam and from 0.9–4.5 MPa for the 0.16 and 0.32 g.cm<sup>-3 </sup>foam. The energy absorbed to yield was found to be negligible for all foam cylinders.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on these results, it is concluded that 0.16 g.cm<sup>-3 </sup>PU foam may prove to be suitable as an OP cancellous bone model when fracture stress, but not energy dissipation, is of concern.</p

    Finite Element Analysis of Bone and Experimental Validation

    Get PDF
    This chapter describes the application of the finite element (FE) method to bone tissues. The aspects that differ the most between bone and other materials’ FE analysis are the type of elements used, constitutive models, and experimental validation. These aspects are looked at from a historical evolution stand point. Several types of elements can be used to simulate similar bone structures and within the same analysis many types of elements may be needed to realistically simulate an anatomical part. Special attention is made to constitutive models, including the use of density-elasticity relationships made possible through CT-scanned images. Other more complex models are also described that include viscoelasticity and anisotropy. The importance of experimental validation is discussed, describing several methods used by different authors in this challenging field. The use of cadaveric human bones is not always possible or desirable and other options are described, as the use of animal or artificial bones. Strain and strain rate measuring methods are also discussed, such as rosette strain gauges and optical devices.publishe

    Comprehensive Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Fragility with CT Colonography

    No full text
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of additional analysis of computed tomographic (CT) colonography images to provide a comprehensive osteoporosis assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant study was approved by our institutional review board with a waiver of informed consent. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk were compared between biomechanical CT analysis and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 136 women (age range, 43–92 years), each of whom underwent CT colonography and DXA within a 6-month period (between January 2008 and April 2010). Blinded to the DXA data, biomechanical CT analysis was retrospectively applied to CT images by using phantomless calibration and finite element analysis to measure bone mineral density and bone strength at the hip and spine. Regression, Bland-Altman, and reclassification analyses and paired t tests were used to compare results. RESULTS: For bone mineral density T scores at the femoral neck, biomechanical CT analysis was highly correlated (R(2) = 0.84) with DXA, did not differ from DXA (P = .15, paired t test), and was able to identify osteoporosis (as defined by DXA), with 100% sensitivity in eight of eight patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.6%, 100%) and 98.4% specificity in 126 of 128 patients (95% CI: 94.5%, 99.6%). Considering both the hip and spine, the classification of patients at high risk for fracture by biomechanical CT analysis—those with osteoporosis or “fragile bone strength”—agreed well against classifications for clinical osteoporosis by DXA (T score ≤−2.5 at the hip or spine), with 82.8% sensitivity in 24 of 29 patients (95% CI: 65.4%, 92.4%) and 85.7% specificity in 66 of 77 patients (95% CI: 76.2%, 91.8%). CONCLUSION: Retrospective biomechanical CT analysis of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening provides a comprehensive osteoporosis assessment without requiring changes in imaging protocols. (©) RSNA, 2015 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on July 24, 2015
    corecore