Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of fracture risk of a distal femur reconstructed with bone cement: QCSRA, FEA, and in-vitro cadaver tests

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lack of quantitative, biomechanical criteria to predict the risk of fracture for a bone affected by giant cell tumor (GCT) has made the decision for the necessary surgical technique a dilemma. The purpose of this study is to critically assess the usefulness of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) based structural rigidity analysis (QCSRA) and QCT-based finite element analysis (FEA) in predicting the fracture risk for long bones reconstructed with bone cement. QCSRA, QCT-based FEA, and in-vitro mechanical tests on five pairs of cadaveric distal femora were employed to quantitatively assess the compressive failure load of the human femur affected by GCT and reconstructed with bone cement. QCT was utilized to investigate the bone’s structural rigidity properties as well as to generate heterogeneous finite element models using written material mapping codes. In order to validate the QCSRA and QCT-based FEA results, their outcomes were compared with the results of in-vitro mechanical tests on human cadavers. Results of this study demonstrated an acceptable correlation between QCSRA fracture loads and fracture loads found in in-vitro mechanical tests on cadavers (R2 = 0.85). Also, QCSRA procedure is developed in order to estimate the axial stiffness and the maximum bending stiffness of the bone, employing the QCT-scans. It is shown that these two features, describing the structural rigidity, are linked to the experimental fracture loads (R2 = 0.72 for axial stiffness, R2 = 0.79 for maximum bending stiffness). Moreover, a good correlation was found between the fracture loads determined by QCT-based FEA and the experimental in-vitro fracture loads (R2 = 0.92). Results of this study confirm the usefulness of the applications of QCSRA and QCT-based FEA as clinically tools for predicting the failure load of a long bone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cowan RW, Singh G (2013) Giant cell tumor of bone: a basic science perspective. Bone 52(1):238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anwar Ul Haque AM (2008) Giant cell tumor of bone: a neoplasm or a reactive condition? Int J Clin Exp Pathol 1(6):489

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Singh S, Singh M, Mak I, Ghert M (2013) Expressional analysis of GFP-tagged cells in an in vivo mouse model of giant cell tumor of bone. Open Orthop J 7:109–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Balke M, Neumann A, Szuhai K, Agelopoulos K, August C, Gosheger G, Hogendoorn PC, Athanasou N, Buerger H, Hagedorn M (2011) A short-term in vivo model for giant cell tumor of bone. BMC Cancer 11(1):241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghouchani A, Rouhi G (2017) The great need of a biomechanical-based approach for surgical methods of giant cell tumor: a critical review. J Med Biol Eng 37(4):454–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chakarun CJ, Forrester DM, Gottsegen CJ, Patel DB, White EA, Matcuk GR Jr. (2013) Giant cell tumor of bone: review, mimics, and new developments in treatment. RadioGraphics 33(1):197–211. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.331125089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA, Farfalli GL, Lores Restrepo CA, Muscolo DL (2009) Joint preservation after extensive curettage of knee giant cell tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(11):2845–2851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruskin J, Caravaggi P, Beebe KS, Corgan S, Chen L, Yoon RS, Patterson FR, Hwang JS (2016) Steinmann pin augmentation versus locking plate constructs. J Orthop Traumatol 17(3):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bickels J, Meller I, Malawer M (2004) The biology and role of cryosurgery in the treatment of bone tumors. Musculoskeletal cancer surgery. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 135–145

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benevenia J, Rivero SM, Moore J, Ippolito JA, Siegerman DA, Beebe KS, Patterson FR (2017) Supplemental bone grafting in giant cell tumor of the extremity reduces nononcologic complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chanasakulniyom M, Aroonjarattham K, Aroonjarattham P, Saktaveekulkit N, Sitthiseripratip K, Mahaisavariya B (2011) The effect of distal femur after replace with biomaterials: finite element analysis. In: The second TSME international conference on mechanical engineering Krabi, pp 19–21

  12. Li J, Wodajo F, Theiss M, Kew M, Jarmas A (2013) Computer simulation techniques in giant cell tumor curettage and defect reconstruction. Comput Sci Eng 15(2):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rennick JA (2012) Bone fracture prediction using computed tomography based rigidity analysis and the finite element method. Northeastern University

  14. D’Elia G, Caracchini G, Cavalli L, Innocenti P (2009) Bone fragility and imaging techniques. Clin Cases Min Bone Metab 6(3):234–246

    Google Scholar 

  15. Villa-Camacho JC, Iyoha-Bello O, Behrouzi S, Snyder BD, Nazarian A (2014) Computed tomography-based rigidity analysis: a review of the approach in preclinical and clinical studies. BoneKEy reports 3

  16. Rennick JA, Nazarian A, Entezari V, Kimbaris J, Tseng A, Masoudi A, Nayeb-Hashemi H, Vaziri A, Snyder BD (2013) Finite element analysis and computed tomography based structural rigidity analysis of rat tibia with simulated lytic defects. J Biomech 46(15):2701–2709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang M, Gao J, Huang X, Gong H, Zhang M, Liu B (2017) Effects of scan resolutions and element sizes on bovine vertebral mechanical parameters from quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis. J Healthc Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5707568

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Viceconti M, Qasim M, Bhattacharya P, Li X (2018) Are CT-based finite element model predictions of femoral bone strengthening clinically useful? Curr Osteoporos Rep 16(3):216–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Damron TA, Nazarian A, Entezari V, Brown C, Grant W, Calderon N, Zurakowski D, Terek RM, Anderson ME, Cheng EY (2016) CT-based structural rigidity analysis is more accurate than mirels scoring for fracture prediction in metastatic femoral lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(3):643–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eggermont F, Derikx L, Verdonschot N, Van der Geest I, De Jong M, Snyers A, Van der Linden Y, Tanck E (2018) Can patient-specific finite element models better predict fractures in metastatic bone disease than experienced clinicians? Towards computational modelling in daily clinical practice. Bone Joint Res 7(6):430–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeys L, Suneja R, Chami G, Grimer R, Carter S, Tillman R (2006) Impending fractures in giant cell tumours of the distal femur: incidence and outcome. Int Orthop 30(2):135–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hirn M, de Silva U, Sidharthan S, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Tillman RM, Carter SR (2009) Bone defects following curettage do not necessarily need augmentation: a retrospective study of 146 patients. Acta Orthop 80(1):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. An YH, Draughn RA (1999) Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Mirzaei M, Keshavarzian M, Naeini V (2014) Analysis of strength and failure pattern of human proximal femur using quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element method. Bone 64:108–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Samsami S, Saberi S, Sadighi S, Rouhi G (2015) Comparison of three fixation methods for femoral neck fracture in young adults: experimental and numerical investigations. J Med Biol Eng 35(5):566–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keyak JH, Falkinstein Y (2003) Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Med Eng Phys 25(9):781–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Anez-Bustillos L, Derikx LC, Verdonschot N, Calderon N, Zurakowski D, Snyder BD, Nazarian A, Tanck E (2014) Finite element analysis and CT-based structural rigidity analysis to assess failure load in bones with simulated lytic defects. Bone 58:160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hong J, Cabe GD, Tedrow JR, Hipp JA, Snyder BD (2004) Failure of trabecular bone with simulated lytic defects can be predicted non-invasively by structural analysis. J Orthop Res 22(3):479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Ford CM, Hayes WC (1994) Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomech 27(9):1137–1146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Snyder BD, Cordio MA, Nazarian A, Kwak SD, Chang DJ, Entezari V, Zurakowski D, Parker LM (2009) Noninvasive prediction of fracture risk in patients with metastatic cancer to the spine. Clin Cancer Res 15(24):7676–7683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Samsami S, Saberi S, Bagheri N, Rouhi G (2016) Interfragmentary motion assessment for three different fixation techniques of femoral neck fractures in young adults. Bio-Med Mater Eng 27(4):389–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ghouchani A, Rouhi G, Ebrahimzadeh MH (2019) Investigation on distal femoral strength and reconstruction failure following curettage and cementation: in-vitro tests with finite element analyses. Comput Biol Med 112:103360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aroonjarattham P, Aroonjarattham K, Chanasakulniyom M (2015) Biomechanical effect of filled biomaterials on distal Thai femur by finite element analysis. Kasetsart J Nat Sci 49(2):263–276

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chang C-H, Hsu J-T, Chen S-I, Chen W-P, Chang G-L (2002) The effect of material inhomogeneous for femoral finite element analysis. J Med Biol Eng 22(3):121–128

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dall’Ara E, Pahr D, Varga P, Kainberger F, Zysset P (2012) QCT-based finite element models predict human vertebral strength in vitro significantly better than simulated DEXA. Osteoporos Int 23(2):563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zysset PK, Dall’Ara E, Varga P, Pahr DH (2013) Finite element analysis for prediction of bone strength. BoneKEy reports 2

  37. Wako Y, Nakamura J, Matsuura Y, Suzuki T, Hagiwara S, Miura M, Kawarai Y, Sugano M, Nawata K, Yoshino K (2018) Finite element analysis of the femoral diaphysis of fresh-frozen cadavers with computed tomography and mechanical testing. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Keyak JH, Kaneko TS, Tehranzadeh J, Skinner HB (2005) Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models. Clin Orthop Relat Res 437:219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Panyasantisuk J, Dall’Ara E, Pretterklieber M, Pahr D, Zysset P (2018) Mapping anisotropy improves QCT-based finite element estimation of hip strength in pooled stance and side-fall load configurations. Med Eng Phys 59:36–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Physio-Mechanical Characterization of Biomaterial Lab at Amirkabir University of Technology; Iranian Tissue Bank and Research Center of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, as well as Dr. S.H. Akhlaghpour for his support with the QCT scanning at Noor Medical Imaging Center, Tehran.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Hoda Mosleh, Gholamreza Rouhi & Azadeh Ghouchani

  2. Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Nima Bagheri

Authors
  1. Hoda Mosleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gholamreza Rouhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Azadeh Ghouchani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nima Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gholamreza Rouhi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mosleh, H., Rouhi, G., Ghouchani, A. et al. Prediction of fracture risk of a distal femur reconstructed with bone cement: QCSRA, FEA, and in-vitro cadaver tests. Phys Eng Sci Med 43, 269–277 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00848-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00848-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation