Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models
Florieke Eggermont1, Loes C Derikx1, Jeffrey Free2,3
1611 Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Abstract:
In a multi-center patient study, using different CT scanners, CT-based finite element (FE) models are utilized to calculate failure loads of femora with metastases. Previous studies showed that using different CT scanners can result in different outcomes. This study aims to quantify the effects of (i) different CT scanners; (ii) different CT protocols with variations in slice thickness, field of view (FOV), and reconstruction kernel; and (iii) air between calibration phantom and patient, on Hounsfield Units (HU), bone mineral density (BMD), and FE failure load. Six cadaveric femora were scanned on four CT scanners. Scans were made with multiple CT protocols and with or without an air gap between the body model and calibration phantom. HU and calibrated BMD were determined in cortical and trabecular regions of interest. Non-linear isotropic FE models were constructed to calculate failure load. Mean differences between CT scanners varied up to 7% in cortical HU, 6% in trabecular HU, 6% in cortical BMD, 12% in trabecular BMD, and 17% in failure load. Changes in slice thickness and FOV had little effect (≤4%), while reconstruction kernels had a larger effect on HU (16%), BMD (17%), and failure load (9%). Air between the body model and calibration phantom slightly decreased the HU, BMD, and failure loads (≤8%). In conclusion, this study showed that quantitative analysis of CT images acquired with different CT scanners, and particularly reconstruction kernels, can induce relatively large differences in HU, BMD, and failure loads. Additionally, if possible, air artifacts should be avoided. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 36:2288-2295, 2018.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Elements and Compounds
Elements
Elements are classified as atomic or molecular based on the nature of their basic units. They are unique forms of matter with specific chemical and physical properties that cannot break down into smaller substances by ordinary chemical reactions. There...
Calculating Standard Free Energy Changes
Periodic Classification of the Elements
Classification of Elements and Compounds
Compounds are pure substances composed of two or more elements in fixed, definite proportions. Compounds are classified as ionic or molecular (covalent) based on the bonds...
Key Elements for Plant Nutrition
Elements: Chemical Symbols and Isotopes
Some symbols are derived from the common English name of the element; others are abbreviations of the name in another language — Latin, Greek or German. For example, the symbol for aluminum (common name)...

