Skip to main content

Table 1 Reported variability of finite element results as an effect of different computed tomography parameters

From: Effect of CT imaging on the accuracy of the finite element modelling in bone

Authors, year [reference] Comparison between Specimens Number Variables Variability
Keyak and Falkinstein (2003) [23] In situ versus in vitro (water) Femur 2 Ultimate load 5.2% and 13.3%
Carpenter et al. (2014) [7] CT scanners Femur 20 Ultimate load 12.5% (CV)
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] CT scanners Femur 6 Ultimate load Maximum 17%
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] Slice thickenss Femur 6 Ultimate load Maximum 4%
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] Field of view Femur 6 Ultimate load Maximum 4%
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] Reconstruction kernels Femur 6 Ultimate load Maximum 9%
Michalski et al. (2019) [30] Reconstruction kernels Femur 1 Ultimate load 18.2%
Michalski et al. (2019) [30] Reconstruction kernels Femur 1 Stiffness 16.5%
  1. CV Coefficient of variation