Assessment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from body scanner image by finite element simulations

Alexander T D Grünwald, Susmita Roy, Ana Alves-Pinto, Renée Lampe, Alexander T D Grünwald, Susmita Roy, Ana Alves-Pinto, Renée Lampe

Abstract

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, is a three-dimensional spinal deformity characterized by lateral curvature and axial rotation around the vertical body axis of the spine, the cause of which is yet unknown. The fast progression entails regular clinical monitoring, including X-rays. Here we present an approach to evaluate scoliosis from the three-dimensional image of a patient's torso, captured by an ionizing radiation free body scanner, in combination with a model of the ribcage and spine. A skeletal structure of the ribcage and vertebral column was modelled with computer aided designed software and was used as an initial structure for macroscopic finite element method simulations. The basic vertebral column model was created for an adult female in an upright position. The model was then used to simulate the patient specific scoliotic spine configurations. The simulations showed that a lateral translation of a vertebral body results in an effective axial rotation and could reproduce the spinal curvatures. The combined method of three-dimensional body scan and finite element model simulations thus provide quantitative anatomical information about the position, rotation and inclination of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae within a three-dimensional torso. Furthermore, the simulations showed unequal distributions of stress and strain profiles across the intervertebral discs, due to their distortions, which might help to further understand the pathogenesis of scoliosis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Patient images.
Fig 1. Patient images.
Posterior-anterior view of a female adolescent with thoracic right convex scoliosis: a.) body scanner image, with slightly inclined waistline (dashed line) and more pronounced waist on the right side, marked by arrow. b.) X-ray image (left/right flipped) with Cobb angle annotation. The red markers indicate the center positions of the vertebral bodies, using analysis tools described in [29]. The orange dashed line shows the result of a least squares polynomial fit through the marker positions. This fit, hence describes the course of the vertebral column in the coronal plane and is then further used for comparison with the model simulations.
Fig 2. Model components.
Fig 2. Model components.
Principle components used to built the model of the ribcage and vertebral column of a female adult and corresponding anatomical dimension parameters, after [31]. (See this reference also for definition in detail of parameters ①, ②, ④–⑧, ⑩.) a.) and b.): Top and side view of the vertebra T6. c.) and d.): Top and side view of the left and right 6th rib. e.) and f.): Front and side view of the combined manubrium and sternum.
Fig 3. CAD model.
Fig 3. CAD model.
Model of ribcage and vertebral column (MoRCaVC) of an adult female, based on anatomical geometry and dimension parameters after [31, 32].
Fig 4. Distorted model inside patient’s body…
Fig 4. Distorted model inside patient’s body scan image.
Transparent back face of an adolescent female 3D body scan with the resulting FEM calculated model inserted at its best match in posterior-anterior view. The markers denote the centre positions of the vertebral bodies along the vertebral column from T1 to L5. The dashed line denotes the course of the distorted vertebral column obtained by least square polynomial fit passing through the marker positions.
Fig 5. Transverse matching contours.
Fig 5. Transverse matching contours.
Transverse cuts at the vertebral levels T1 to L3 through the body scan image (shown in Fig 4) with the FEM calculated model inserted visualizing the individual lateral translation and axial rotation of the vertebrae and ribcage at its best match.
Fig 6. Sequential decomposition.
Fig 6. Sequential decomposition.
Sequential model distortion in relation to the static body scan image upon opposite lateral translations at the vertebrae T8 and L2 (panels a.) to c.) and subsequent active clockwise axial rotation of vertebra T8 (panels d.) and e.)). While the coronal views (left panels) visualize the overall lateral model distortion, the resulting anti-clockwise rotation of vertebral T8 from only lateral translations at the vertebrae T8 and L2 is visible in the transverse views (right panels).
Fig 7. Comparison with X-ray.
Fig 7. Comparison with X-ray.
Overlay of X-ray and simulation result images at best match according to visual inspection, with different transparencies from left to right (for better visualization). The colour code shows the total displacement from the initial state—a straight vertebral column in the coronal view.
Fig 8. Model vs. X-ray.
Fig 8. Model vs. X-ray.
Comparison of the courses of the vertebral column extracted from X-ray (dashed lines) and model calculation (solid lines) for patients P1 and P2 (a.) and c.)), respectively, showing their absolute lateral deviation. The absolute lateral differences between the curves at the vertebral levels for either patient are depicted in b.) and c.). The parameter A quantifies the grey area between the curves and hence represents a measure for the degree the courses derived from X-ray and model calculation matches each other. (Note that the X-axes have been scaled for better visualization).
Fig 9. Stress on intervertebral discs.
Fig 9. Stress on intervertebral discs.
Effective stress integrated per volume of all IVDs (left) and at three principle nodes in the transverse plane between the vertebral level T8 and T9 (right). The states zero to ten correspond to the prescribed lateral displacements at the vertebral levels T8 and L2 and the states eleven to twenty correspond to the subsequent rotation around the z-axis of the vertebra T8, in accordance with the sequential representation in Fig 6.
Fig 10. Strain on intervertebral discs.
Fig 10. Strain on intervertebral discs.
Effective Lagrange strain integrated per volume of all IVDs (left) and at three principle nodes in the transverse plane between the vertebral level T8 and T9 (right). The states zero to ten correspond to the predefined lateral displacements at the vertebral levels T8 and L2 and the states eleven to twenty correspond to the subsequent rotation around the z-axis of the vertebra T8, in accordance with the sequential representation in Fig 6.

References

    1. Staheli LT. Practice of Pediatric Orthopedics. LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS; 2001.
    1. Kikanloo SR, Tarpada SP, Cho W. Etiology of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Literature Review. Asian spine journal. 2019;13:519–526. 10.31616/asj.2018.0096
    1. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. The New England journal of medicine. 2013;369:1512–21. 10.1056/NEJMoa1307337
    1. Grossman TW, Mazur JM, Cummings RJ. An evaluation of the Adams forward bend test and the scoliometer in a scoliosis school screening setting. Journal of pediatric orthopedics. 1995;15:535–8. 10.1097/01241398-199507000-00025
    1. Cobb J. Outline for the study of scoliosis,. Instructional CourseLectures. 1948;5:261–275.
    1. Law M, Ma WK, Lau D, Chan E, Yip L, Lam W. Cumulative radiation exposure and associated cancer risk estimates for scoliosis patients: Impact of repetitive full spine radiography. European journal of radiology. 2016;85:625–8. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.032
    1. Willner S. Moiré topography–a method for school screening of scoliosis. Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery Archiv fur orthopadische und Unfall-Chirurgie. 1979;95:181–5. 10.1007/BF00460117
    1. Moreland MS, Pope MH, Wilder DG, Stokes I, Frymoyer JW. Moiré fringe topography of the human body. Medical instrumentation. 1981;15:129–32.
    1. Drerup B. Rasterstereographic measurement of scoliotic deformity. Scoliosis. 2014;9:22 10.1186/s13013-014-0022-7
    1. Gardner A, Berryman F, Pynsent P. The effects of scoliosis and subsequent surgery on the shape of the torso. Scoliosis and spinal disorders. 2017;12:31 10.1186/s13013-017-0140-0
    1. Berryman F, Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Disney S. A new system for measuring three-dimensional back shape in scoliosis. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2008;17:663–72. 10.1007/s00586-007-0581-x
    1. Oxborrow NJ. Assessing the child with scoliosis: the role of surface topography. Archives of disease in childhood. 2000;83:453–5. 10.1136/adc.83.5.453
    1. Thometz JG, Lamdan R, Liu XC, Lyon R. Relationship between Quantec measurement and Cobb angle in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Journal of pediatric orthopedics. 2000;20:512–6.
    1. Poredoš P, Čelan D, Možina J, Jezeršek M. Determination of the human spine curve based on laser triangulation. BMC medical imaging. 2015;15:2 10.1186/s12880-015-0044-5
    1. Patias P, Grivas TB, Kaspiris A, Aggouris C, Drakoutos E. A review of the trunk surface metrics used as Scoliosis and other deformities evaluation indices. Scoliosis. 2010;5:12 10.1186/1748-7161-5-12
    1. Goldberg CJ, Kaliszer M, Moore DP, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE. Surface topography, Cobb angles, and cosmetic change in scoliosis. Spine. 2001;26:E55–63. 10.1097/00007632-200102150-00005
    1. Stokes IA, Gardner-Morse M. Analysis of the interaction between vertebral lateral deviation and axial rotation in scoliosis. Journal of biomechanics. 1991;24:753–9. 10.1016/0021-9290(91)90339-O
    1. Drevelle X, Dubousset J, Lafon Y, Ebermeyer E, Skalli W. Analysis of the mechanisms of idiopathic scoliosis progression using finite element simulation. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2008;140:85–9.
    1. Lafage V, Dubousset J, Lavaste F, Skalli W. 3D finite element simulation of Cotrel-Dubousset correction. Computer aided surgery: official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery. 2004;9:17–25. 10.3109/10929080400006390
    1. Fagan MJ, Julian S, Mohsen AM. Finite element analysis in spine research. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine. 2002;216:281–98. 10.1243/09544110260216568
    1. Stokes IA, Laible JP. Three-dimensional osseo-ligamentous model of the thorax representing initiation of scoliosis by asymmetric growth. Journal of biomechanics. 1990;23:589–95. 10.1016/0021-9290(90)90051-4
    1. Dietrich M, Kedzior K, Zagrajek T. A biomechanical model of the human spinal system. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine. 1991;205:19–26. 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_257_02
    1. Lee M, Kelly DW, Steven GP. A model of spine, ribcage and pelvic responses to a specific lumbar manipulative force in relaxed subjects. Journal of biomechanics. 1995;28:1403–8. 10.1016/0021-9290(95)00001-X
    1. Mizrahi J, Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Edwards WT, Hayes WC. Finite-element stress analysis of the normal and osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body. Spine. 1993;18:2088–96. 10.1097/00007632-199310001-00028
    1. Overaker DW, Langrana NA, Cuitiño AM. Finite element analysis of vertebral body mechanics with a nonlinear microstructural model for the trabecular core. Journal of biomechanical engineering. 1999;121:542–50. 10.1115/1.2835085
    1. Wang JL, Parnianpour M, Shirazi-Adl A, Engin AE. The dynamic response of L(2)/L(3) motion segment in cyclic axial compressive loading. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 1998;13:S16–S25. 10.1016/S0268-0033(97)00070-3
    1. Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM. Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite element model. Spine. 1996;21:2570–9. 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00006
    1. Lenke L, Betz R, Harms J, Bridwell K, Clements D, Lowe T, et al. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A New Classification to Determine Extent of Spinal Arthrodesis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery–American. 2001;83(8):1169–1181. 10.2106/00004623-200108000-00006
    1. Roy S, Grünwald ATD, Alves-Pinto A, Maier R, Cremers D, Pfeiffer D, et al. A Noninvasive 3D Body Scanner and Software Tool towards Analysis of Scoliosis. BioMed Research International. 2019;2019:e4715720 10.1155/2019/4715720
    1. FreeCAD;. Available from: .
    1. Busscher I, Ploegmakers JJW, Verkerke GJ, Veldhuizen AG. Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine. European Spine Journal. 2010;19(7):1104–1114. 10.1007/s00586-010-1326-9
    1. Holcombe SA, Wang SC, Grotberg JB. Modeling female and male rib geometry with logarithmic spirals. Journal of Biomechanics. 2016;49(13):2995–3003. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.07.021
    1. Tittel K. Beschreibende und funktionelle Anatomie des Menschen. 11th ed VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag Jena; 1990.
    1. Selthofer R, Nikolić V, Mrcela T, Radić R, Leksan I, Rudez I, et al. Morphometric analysis of the sternum. Collegium antropologicum. 2006;30:43–7.
    1. Maas SA, Ellis BJ, Ateshian GA, Weiss JA. FEBio: finite elements for biomechanics. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2012;134(1):011005 10.1115/1.4005694
    1. FEBio;. Available from: .
    1. Gwinner J. Non-linear elastic deformations. Acta Applicandae Mathematica. 1988;11(2):191–193. 10.1007/BF00047287
    1. Ogden RW. Non-Linear Elastic Deformations. Dover Publications Inc.; 2013. Available from: .
    1. Zhu Y, Fang Y, Bermond F, Bruyère-Garnier K, Ellouz R, Rongieras F, et al. Relationship between human rib mechanical properties and cortical bone density measured by high-resolution quantitative computed tomography. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 2013;16 Suppl 1:191–2. 10.1080/10255842.2013.815888
    1. Haverfield ZA. Quantifying Variation in Human Rib Volumetric Bone MineralDensity (vBMD) and its Relationship to Fracture. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University; 2019.
    1. Deng YC, Kong W, Ho H. Development of a Finite Element Human Thorax Model for Impact Injury Studies. SAE Transactions. 1999;108:1193–1199.
    1. Vanneuville G, Cluzel P, Massaux M, Bressolette P, Kyndt T, Garcier JM, et al. A model of the human lumbar vertebral column: a preliminary study. Surgical and radiologic anatomy: SRA. 1995;17:53–7. 10.1007/BF01629500
    1. Forman JL, Kent RW. Modeling costal cartilage using local material properties with consideration for gross heterogeneities. Journal of Biomechanics. 2011;44(5):910–916. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.11.034
    1. Lan CC, Kuo CS, Chen CH, Hu HT. Finite element analysis of biomechanical behavior of whole thoraco-lumbar spine with ligamentous effect. The Changhua Journal of Medicine. 2013;11:26–41.
    1. Yang H, Jekir MG, Davis MW, Keaveny TM. Effective modulus of the human intervertebral disc and its effect on vertebral bone stress. Journal of Biomechanics. 2016;49(7):1134–1140. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.02.045
    1. Zhu Y, Bermond F, Payen de la Garanderie J, Pialat JB, Sandoz B, Brizard D, et al. In Vivo Assessment of Elasticity of Child Rib Cortical Bone Using Quantitative Computed Tomography; 2017. Available from: .
    1. Agnew AM, Moorhouse K, Kang YS, Donnelly BR, Pfefferle K, Manning AX, et al. The response of pediatric ribs to quasi-static loading: mechanical properties and microstructure. Annals of biomedical engineering. 2013;41:2501–14. 10.1007/s10439-013-0875-6
    1. Pezowicz C, Głowacki M. The mechanical properties of human ribs in young adult. Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics. 2012;14:53–60.
    1. Lavecchia CE, Espino DM, Moerman KM, Tse KM, Robinson D, Lee PVS, et al. Lumbar model generator: a tool for the automated generation of a parametric scalable model of the lumbar spine. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2018;15(138):20170829 10.1098/rsif.2017.0829
    1. PreView, Finite Elemente Preprocessing (for analysis with FEBio), User’s Manual Version 2.1; 2018. Available from: .
    1. FEBio User’s Manual Version 2.8; 2018. Available from: .
    1. Holcombe SA, Wang SC, Grotberg JB. The effect of age and demographics on rib shape. Journal of anatomy. 2017;231:229–247. 10.1111/joa.12632
    1. Agnew AM, Schafman M, Moorhouse K, White SE, Kang YS. The effect of age on the structural properties of human ribs. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. 2015;41:302–14. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.09.002
    1. Liebsch C, Graf N, Wilke HJ. In vitro analysis of kinematics and elastostatics of the human rib cage during thoracic spinal movement for the validation of numerical models. Journal of Biomechanics. 2019;94:147–157. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.041
    1. Poulard D, Subit D. Unveiling the structural response of the ribcage: Contribution of the intercostal muscles to the thoracic mechanical response. Conference: The 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), At Gothenburg, Sweden; 2015.
    1. Roy S, Grünwald ATD, Alves-Pinto A, Lampe R. Automatic Analysis Method of 3D Images in Patients with Scoliosis by Quantifying Asymmetry in Transverse Contours. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering. 2020;40:1486–1498. 10.1016/j.bbe.2020.09.001
    1. Hefti F. Pathogenesis and biomechanics of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics. 2013;7(1):17–24. 10.1007/s11832-012-0460-9
    1. Guo X, Chau WW, Chan YL, Cheng JCY, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH. Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis–result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2005;14:862–73. 10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7
    1. Xiong B, Sevastik J, Hedlund R, Sevastik B. Sagittal configuration of the spine and growth of the posterior elements in early scoliosis. Journal of orthopaedic research: official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society. 1994;12:113–8. 10.1002/jor.1100120114
    1. Stokes IAF, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH. Biomechanical spinal growth modulation and progressive adolescent scoliosis–a test of the’vicious cycle’ pathogenetic hypothesis: summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE. Scoliosis. 2006;1:16 10.1186/1748-7161-1-16
    1. de Sèze M, Cugy E. Pathogenesis of idiopathic scoliosis: a review. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine. 2012;55:128–38. 10.1016/j.rehab.2012.01.003
    1. Fleming A, Keynes RJ, Tannahill D. The role of the notochord in vertebral column formation. Journal of anatomy. 2001;199:177–80. 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2001.19910177.x
    1. Meir A, McNally DS, Fairbank JC, Jones D, Urban JP. The internal pressure and stress environment of the scoliotic intervertebral disc–a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine. 2008;222:209–19. 10.1243/09544119JEIM303
    1. Bibby SRS, Meir A, Fairbank JCT, Urban JPG. Cell viability and the physical environment in the scoliotic intervertebral disc. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2002;91:419–21.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever