Abstract
Vertebrae provide essential biomechanical stability to the skeleton. In this work novel morphing techniques were used to parameterize three aspects of the geometry of a specimen-specific finite element (FE) model of a rat caudal vertebra (process size, neck size, and end-plate offset). Material properties and loading were also parameterized using standard techniques. These parameterizations were then integrated within an RSM framework and used to produce a family of FE models. The mechanical behavior of each model was characterized by predictions of stress and strain. A metamodel was fit to each of the responses to yield the relative influences of the factors and their interactions. The direction of loading, offset, and neck size had the largest influences on the levels of vertebral stress and strain. Material type was influential on the strains, but not the stress. Process size was substantially less influential. A strong interaction was identified between dorsal–ventral offset and dorsal–ventral off-axis loading. The demonstrated approach has several advantages for spinal biomechanical analysis by enabling the examination of the sensitivity of a specimen to multiple variations in shape, and of the interactions between shape, material properties, and loading.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abaqus. Abaqus v6.5.1 Online Reference Manual. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault Systems, 2006.
Akens, M. K., M. R. Hardisty, B. C. Wilson, J. Schwock, C. M. Whyne, S. Burch, and A. J. Yee. Defining the therapeutic window of vertebral photodynamic therapy in a murine pre-clinical model of breast cancer metastasis using the photosensitizer BPD-MA (Verteporfin). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009. doi:10.1007/s10549-009-0356-7.
Anderson, M. J., and P. J. Whitcomb. DOE Simplified: Practical Tools for Effective Experimentation. Productivity Press, p. 256, 2000.
Anderson, M. J., and Whitcomb, P. J. RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes Using Response Surface Methods for Design of Experiments. Productivity Press, p. 292, 2005.
Bade, R., J. Haase, and B. Preim. Comparison of fundamental mesh smoothing, algorithms for medical surface models. In: Visualization in Medicine, Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, edited by B. Preim, and D. Bartz. Morgan Kaufmann, 2007.
Bhadra, S., and R. Ganguli. Aeroelastic optimization of a helicopter rotor using orthogonal array-based metamodels. AIAA J. 44:1941–1951, 2006.
Bookstein, F. L. Describing a craniofacial anomaly: finite elements and the biometrics of landmark locations. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 74:495–509, 1987.
Box, G. E. P., J. S. Hunter, and W. G. Hunter. Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. Wiley-Interscience, 2005.
Brock, K. K., L. A. Dawson, M. B. Sharpe, D. J. Moseley, and D. A. Jaffray. Feasibility of a novel deformable image registration technique to facilitate classification, targeting, and monitoring of tumor and normal tissue. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 64:1245–1254, 2006.
Brock, K. K., A. M. Nichol, C. Menard, J. L. Moseley, P. R. Warde, C. N. Catton, and D. A. Jaffray. Accuracy and sensitivity of finite element model-based deformable registration of the prostate. Med. Phys. 35:4019–4025, 2008.
Brock, K. K., M. B. Sharpe, L. A. Dawson, S. M. Kim, and D. A. Jaffray. Accuracy of finite element model-based multi-organ deformable image registration. Med. Phys. 32:1647–1659, 2005.
Burch, S., S. K. Bisland, B. C. Wilson, C. Whyne, and A. J. Yee. Multimodality imaging for vertebral metastases in a rat osteolytic model. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 454:230–236, 2007.
Cauley, J. A., M. C. Hochberg, L. Y. Lui, L. Palermo, K. E. Ensrud, T. A. Hillier, M. C. Nevitt, and S. R. Cummings. Long-term risk of incident vertebral fractures. Jama 298:2761–2767, 2007.
Couteau, B., Y. Payan, and S. Lavallee. The mesh-matching algorithm: an automatic 3D mesh generator for finite element structures. J. Biomech. 33:1005–1009, 2000.
Cowin, S. C., and S. B. Doty. Tissue Mechanics. New York: Springer, 2007.
Czitrom, V. One-Factor-at-a-Time versus designed experiments. Am. Stat. 53:126–131, 1999.
Dar, F. H., J. R. Meakin, and R. M. Aspden. Statistical methods in finite element analysis. J. Biomech. 35:1155–1161, 2002.
Dimar, 2nd, J. R., M. J. Voor, Y. M. Zhang, and S. D. Glassman. A human cadaver model for determination of pathologic fracture threshold resulting from tumorous destruction of the vertebral body. Spine 23:1209–1214, 1998.
Fernandez, J. W., A. Ho, S. Walt, I. A. Anderson, and P. J. Hunter. A cerebral palsy assessment tool using anatomically based geometries and free-form deformation. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 4:39–56, 2005.
Fernandez, J. W., P. Mithraratne, S. F. Thrupp, M. H. Tawhai, and P. J. Hunter. Anatomically based geometric modelling of the musculo-skeletal system and other organs. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2:139–155, 2004.
Gibson, A. P., J. Riley, M. Schweiger, J. C. Hebden, S. R. Arridge, and D. T. Delpy. A method for generating patient-specific finite element meshes for head modelling. Phys. Med. Biol. 48:481–495, 2003.
Hardisty, M. R. Strain measurement in vertebral bodies by image registration. In: Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, 2006.
Hardisty, M. R., and C. M. Whyne. Whole bone strain quantification by image registration: a validation study. J. Biomech. Eng. 131:064502, 2009.
Horst, M., and P. Brinckmann. 1980 Volvo award in biomechanics. Measurement of the distribution of axial stress on the end-plate of the vertebral body. Spine 6:217–232, 1981.
Krause, R., and O. Sander. Automatic construction of boundary parametrizations for geometric multigrid solvers. Comput. Vis. Sci. 9:11–22, 2006.
Lavaste, F., W. Skalli, S. Robin, R. Roy-Camille, and C. Mazel. Three-dimensional geometrical and mechanical modelling of the lumbar spine. J. Biomech. 25:1153–1164, 1992.
Lee, C.-C., C.-C. Lee, H.-T. Ku, S.-M. Chang, and K.-N. Chiang. Solder joints layout design and reliability enhancements of wafer level packaging using response surface methodology. Microelectron. Reliab. 47:196–204, 2007.
Lee, C. F., P. R. Chen, W. J. Lee, J. H. Chen, and T. C. Liu. Three-dimensional reconstruction and modeling of middle ear biomechanics by high-resolution computed tomography and finite element analysis. Laryngoscope 116:711–716, 2006.
Lendrem, D., M. Owen, and S. Godbert. DOE (Design of experiments) in developmental chemistry: potential obstacles. Org. Process Res. Dev. 5:324–327, 2001.
McBroom, R. J., W. C. Hayes, W. T. Edwards, R. P. Goldberg, and A. A. White, 3rd. Prediction of vertebral body compressive fracture using quantitative computed tomography. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 67:1206–1214, 1985.
Meakin, J. R., N. G. Shrive, C. B. Frank, and D. A. Hart. Finite element analysis of the meniscus: the influence of geometry and material properties on its behaviour. Knee 10:33–41, 2003.
Montgomery, D. C. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley, 2004.
Mow, V. C., and W. C. Hayes. Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers, 1997.
Nelder, J. A. The selection of terms in response-surface models—How strong is the weak-heredity principle? Am. Stat. 52:315, 1998.
O’Reilly, M. A., and C. M. Whyne. Comparison of computed tomography based parametric and patient-specific finite element models of the healthy and metastatic spine using a mesh-morphing algorithm. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1876–1881, 2008.
Ortiz Gomez, J. A. The incidence of ertebral body metastases. Int. Orthop. 19:309–311, 1995.
Preetha, B., and T. Viruthagiri. Application of response surface methodology for the biosorption of copper using Rhizopus arrhizus. J. Hazard. Mater. 143:506–510, 2007.
Rekow, E. D., M. Harsono, M. Janal, V. P. Thompson, and G. Zhang. Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent. Mater. 22:125–132, 2006.
Roberts, M. D., and R. T. Hart. Shape adaptation of long bone structures using a contour based approach. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 8:145–156, 2005.
Sederberg, T. W., and S. R. Parry. Free-form deformation of solid geometric models. In: SIGGRAPH 86, edited by D. C. Evans, and R. J. Athay. New York: ACM SIGGRAAPH, pp. 151–160, 1986.
Shim, V. B., R. P. Pitto, R. M. Streicher, P. J. Hunter, and I. A. Anderson. The use of sparse CT datasets for auto-generating accurate FE models of the femur and pelvis. J. Biomech. 40:26–35, 2007.
Shirado, O., K. Kaneda, S. Tadano, H. Ishikawa, P. C. McAfee, and K. E. Warden. Influence of disc degeneration on mechanism of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine 17:286–292, 1992.
Shontz, S. M., and S. A. Vavasis. A mesh warping algorithm based on weighted Laplacian smoothing. In: 12th International Meshing Roundtable, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 147–158, 2003.
Sigal, I. A. Interactions between geometry and mechanical properties on the optic nerve head. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 50(6):2785–2795, 2009.
Sigal, I. A., J. G. Flanagan, I. Tertinegg, and C. R. Ethier. Modeling individual-specific human optic nerve head biomechanics. Part I: IOP-induced deformations and influence of geometry. Biomech. Model Mechanobiol. 8(2):85–98, 2009.
Sigal, I. A., M. R. Hardisty, and C. M. Whyne. Mesh-morphing algorithms for specimen-specific finite element modeling. J. Biomech. 41:1381–1389, 2008.
Sigal, I. A., H. Yang, M. D. Roberts, and J. C. Downs. Morphing methods to parameterize specimen-specific finite element geometries. J. Biomech. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.08.036.
Silva, M. J., J. A. Hipp, D. P. McGowan, T. Takenchi, and W. C. Hayes. Strength reductions of thoracic vertebrae in the presence of transcortical osseous defects: effects of defect location, pedicle disruption, and defect size. Eur. Spine J. 2:118–125, 1993.
Suwito, W., T. S. Keller, P. K. Basu, A. M. Weisberger, A. M. Strauss, and D. M. Spengler. Geometric and material property study of the human lumbar spine using the finite element method. J. Spinal Disord. 5:50–59, 1992.
Taddei, F., A. Pancanti, and M. Viceconti. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med. Eng. Phys. 26:61–69, 2004.
Taddei, F., E. Schileo, B. Helgason, L. Cristofolini, and M. Viceconti. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. Med. Eng. Phys. 29:973–979, 2007.
Vard, J. P., D. J. Kelly, A. W. Blayney, and P. J. Prendergast. The influence of ventilation tube design on the magnitude of stress imposed at the implant/tympanic membrane interface. Med. Eng. Phys. 30:154–163, 2008.
Viceconti, M., and F. Taddei. Automatic generation of finite element meshes from computed tomography data. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 31:27–72, 2003.
Wang, J. L., A. Shirazi-Adl, and M. Parnianpour. Search for critical loading condition of the spine—a meta analysis of a nonlinear viscoelastic finite element model. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 8:323–330, 2005.
Wong, D. A., V. L. Fornasier, and I. MacNab. Spinal metastases: the obvious, the occult, and the impostors. Spine 15:1–4, 1990.
Yao, J., A. D. Salo, J. Lee, and A. L. Lerner. Sensitivity of tibio-menisco-femoral joint contact behavior to variations in knee kinematics. J. Biomech. 41:390–398, 2008.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this work was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The coefficients of the metamodels (Table A1) can be assembled into a function, such as
where A = Process size, B = Offset, etc. all coded from −1 to +1. Predictions are in MPa for the stresses and in percentages for the strains. Note that the coding extends to the material model, although only the extreme values −1 and +1 are meaningful. Some of the elements included in the equations contribute little to the metamodel, and were included for completeness. If those elements are not included the equations are simpler and predict essentially the same values. See Table 2 for measures of the quality of fit. To simplify comparison we report strain absolute values.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sigal, I.A., Whyne, C.M. Mesh Morphing and Response Surface Analysis: Quantifying Sensitivity of Vertebral Mechanical Behavior. Ann Biomed Eng 38, 41–56 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-009-9821-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-009-9821-z