4.5 Article

Validation of an HR-pQCT-based homogenized finite element approach using mechanical testing of ultra-distal radius sections

Journal

BIOMECHANICS AND MODELING IN MECHANOBIOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 431-444

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10237-010-0245-3

Keywords

Distal radius; Colles' fracture; HR-pQCT; Finite element; Homogenization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Osteoporotic (Colles' type) fractures of the distal radius occur relatively early in lifetime and could estimate risk of fracture of other, more endangered anatomical sites. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) based micro finite element (mu FE) analysis was shown to better predict fracture load of the distal radius than densitometry or histomorphometric measures. As an alternative to mu FE, homogenization-based FE (hFE) approach may provide at least equivalent predictive power with reduced computational needs. The aim of this study was to validate the hFE approach with compression tests of 25 distal radius sections extracted at the location which is relevant in Colles' fractures. HR-pQCT-based input parameters of the hFE models were calibrated with respect to mu CT. HR-pQCT-based hFE models were then built and their ability to predict experimental stiffness and ultimate load was compared to those of the density-based parameters, histomorphometric indices and mu FE models assessed from the same input images. Bone mineral content was the best non-FE-based predictor (R (2) = 0.86) of ultimate force. Both FE methods were not only the strongest predictors, but provided quantitatively correct fracture loads. The calibrated hFE approach provided closely as strong prediction (R (2) = 0.94) as mu FE (R (2) = 0.95), but the former was computationally cheaper. The results of this validation study suggest that FE simulation could be used as an efficient and precise tool to predict Colles' fracture load.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available