Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12564880

Virtual tagging: numerical considerations and phantom validation.

Sharmeen Masood·Jianxin Gao·Guang-Zhong Yang
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper presents a virtual tagging framework for measuring, as well as visualising, myocardial deformation using magnetic resonance (MR) velocity imaging. Tagging grids are allocated artificially according to the deformation gradient with varying shapes and densities. The control points are then deformed such that the difference between the induced deformation velocity and that of actually measured MR data is minimum. A full three-dimensional implementation of the technique combined with the mass conservation constraint is provided. Numerical considerations of applying the proposed framework and different optimization strategies have been investigated with both simulated and phantom experiments. The accuracy of the technique in terms of following material deformation is compared with that of conventional tagging technique.

Explore related subjects

Finite Element AnalysisHeartHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMyocardial ContractionJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sharmeen Masood, Jianxin Gao, Guang-Zhong Yang. 2002. Virtual tagging: numerical considerations and phantom validation.. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2002.804429

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2025

Double-Axis Maxillary Skeletal Expander Suggests Higher Expansion Efficiency in Early Activation: A Finite Element Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional single-axis maxillary skeletal expanders (MSE) have some drawbacks, such as limited control over maxillary expansion and possible asymmetric expansion between the anterior nasal spine (ANS) and posterior nasal spine (PNS). This report introduces a double-axis maxillary skeletal expander (DAMSE) concept to overcome these drawbacks and enhance the efficiency of maxillary skeletal expansion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five different DAMSE designs were compared with a conventional single-axis MSE. Finite element analysis was performed to analyse their expansion efficiency, stress magnitude and distribution occurring in a simplified bone model. RESULTS: DAMSE outperformed the single-axis MSE and provided better control over ANS and PNS expansion. During early activation, the highest expansion efficiency (31.7%) was achieved by DAMSE Model V, 13% more efficient than the single-axis MSE. This efficiency was increased to 100.8% by combining the DAMSE Model V with midpalatal suture surgery. However, with the simplified bone model, the current study could not demonstrate that DAMSE can resolve the issue of asymmetric expansion between ANS and PNS. CONCLUSIONS: An appropriately designed DAMSE can be a promising tool for maxillary expansion treatment. DAMSE offers more efficient treatment than the conventional single-axis MSE while maintaining similar levels of patient comfort and invasiveness.

Finite Element Analysis↗
PubMed2007

Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment.

BACKGROUND: An important step in finite element modeling is the process of validation to derive clinical relevant data. It can be assumed that defect states of a finite element model, which have not been validated before, may predict wrong results. The purpose of this study was to show the differences in accuracy between a calibrated and a non-calibrated finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment for different clinical defects. METHODS: For this study, two geometrically identical finite element models were used. An in vitro experiment was designed, deriving data for the calibration. Frequently used material properties were obtained from the literature and transferred into the non-calibrated model. Both models were validated on three clinical defects: bilateral hemifacetectomy, nucleotomy and interspinous defects, whereas in vitro range of motion data served as control points. Predictability and accuracy of the calibrated and non-calibrated finite element model were evaluated and compared. FINDINGS: Both finite element models could mimic the intact situation with a good agreement. In the defects, the calibrated model predicted motion behavior with excellent agreement, whereas the non-calibrated model diverged greatly. INTERPRETATION: Investigating the biomechanical performance of implants and load distribution of different spinal structures by numerical analysis requires not only good agreement with the intact segment, but also with the defect states, which are initiated prior to implant insertion. Because of more realistic results the calibration method may be recommended, however, it is more time consuming.

Finite Element Analysis↗
PubMed2006

Finite element-based probabilistic analysis tool for orthopaedic applications.

Orthopaedic implants, as well as other physical systems, contain inherent variability in geometry, material properties, component alignment, and loading conditions. While complex, deterministic finite element (FE) models do not account for the potential impact of variability on performance, probabilistic studies have typically predicted behavior from simplified FE models to achieve practical solution times. The objective of this research was to develop an efficient and versatile probabilistic FE tool to quantify the effect of uncertainty in the design variables on the performance of orthopaedic components under relevant conditions. Key aspects of the computational tool developed include parametric and automated FE model creation for changes in dimensional variables, efficient solution using the advanced mean-value (AMV) reliability method, and identification of the most significant design variables. Two orthopaedic applications are presented to demonstrate the ability of the computational tool to efficiently and accurately represent component performance.

Finite Element Analysis↗