Sensitivity of proximal femoral stiffness and areal bone mineral density to changes in bone geometry and density.
Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) is the most common surrogate measurement for assessing the bone strength of the proximal femur associated with osteoporosis. Additional factors, however, contribute to the overall strength of the proximal femur, primarily the anatomical geometry. Finite element analysis (FEA) is an effective and widely used computer-based simulation technique for modelling mechanical loading of various engineering structures, providing predictions of displacement and induced stress distribution due to the applied load. FEA is therefore inherently dependent upon both density and anatomical geometry. FEA may be performed on both three-dimensional and two-dimensional models of the proximal femur derived from radiographic images, from which the mechanical stiffness may be predicted. It is examined whether the outcome measures of two-dimensional FEA, two-dimensional, finite element analysis of X-ray images (FEXI), and three-dimensional FEA computed stiffness values of the proximal femur are more sensitive than aBMD to changes in trabecular bone density and femur geometry. It is assumed that if an outcome measure follows known trends with changes in density and geometric parameters, then an increased sensitivity will be indicative of an improved prediction of bone strength. All three outcome measures increased non-linearly with trabecular bone density, increased linearly with cortical shell thickness and neck width, decreased linearly with neck length, and were relatively insensitive to neck-shaft angle. For femoral head radius, aBMD was relatively insensitive, with two-dimensional FEXI and three-dimensional FEA demonstrating a non-linear increase and decrease in sensitivity respectively. For neck anteversion, aBMD decreased non-linearly, whereas both two-dimensional FEXI and three-dimensional FEA demonstrated a parabolic-type relationship, with the maximum stiffness being achieved at an angle of approximately 15 degrees. Multi-parameter analysis showed that all three outcome measures demonstrated their highest sensitivity to a change in cortical thickness. When changes in all input parameters were considered simultaneously, three and two-dimensional FEA had statistically equal sensitivities (0.41 +/- 0.20 and 0.42 +/- 0.16 respectively, p = ns) that were significantly higher than the sensitivity of aBMD (0.24 +/- 0.07; p = 0.014 and 0.002 for three-dimensional and two-dimensional FEA respectively). This simulation study suggests that since mechanical integrity and FEA are inherently dependent on anatomical geometry, FEXI stiffness, being derived from conventional two-dimensional radiographic images, may provide an improvement in the prediction of bone strength of the proximal femur than currently provided by aBMD.
Pisharody
S
S
Medical Physics Service, Hull & East Yorkshire Hospitals, Hull, UK.
Phillips
R
R
Langton
C M
CM
D015502:Absorptiometry, Photon; D015519:Bone Density; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003955:Diagnostic Tests, Routine / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004548:Elasticity; D005270:Femur Head / Q000502:physiology*; D005272:Femur Neck / Q000502:physiology*; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology; D012107:Research Design; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016474:Weight-Bearing / Q000502:physiology