Specimen specific parameter identification of ovine lumbar intervertebral discs: On the influence of fibre-matrix and fibre-fibre shear interactions.

Numerical models of the intervertebral disc, which address mechanical questions commonly make use of the difference in water content between annulus and nucleus, and thus fluid and solid parts are separated. Despite this simplification, models remain complex due to the anisotropy and nonlinearity of the annulus and regional variations of the collagen fibre density. Additionally, it has been shown that cross-links make a large contribution to the stiffness of the annulus. Because of this complex composite structure, it is difficult to reproduce several sets of experimental data with one single set of material parameters. This study addresses the question to which extent the ultrastructure of the intervertebral disc should be modelled so that its moment-angle behaviour can be adequately described. Therefore, a hyperelastic constitutive law, based on continuum mechanical principles was derived, which does not only consider the anisotropy from the collagen fibres, but also interactions among the fibres and between the fibres and the ground substance. Eight ovine lumbar intervertebral discs were tested on a custom made spinal loading simulator in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Specimen-specific geometrical models were generated using CT images and T2 maps to distinguish between annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus. For the identification of the material parameters the annulus fibrosus was described with two scenarios: with and without fibre-matrix and fibre-fibre interactions. Both scenarios showed a similar behaviour on a load displacement level. Comparing model predictions to the experimental data, the mean RMS of all specimens and all load cases was 0.54±0.15° without the interaction and 0.54±0.19° when the fibre-matrix and fibre-fibre interactions were included. However, due to the increased stiffness when cross-links effects were included, this scenario showed more physiological stress-strain relations in uniaxial and biaxial stress states. Thus, the present study suggests that fibre-matrix and fibre-fibre interactions should be considered in the constitutive law when the model addresses questions concerning the stress field of the annulus fibrosus.

Simple beam models for Monte Carlo photon beam dose calculations in radiotherapy

Monte Carlo (code GEANT) produced 6 and 15 MV phase space (PS) data were used to define several simple photon beam models. For creating the PS data the energy of starting electrons hitting the target was tuned to get correct depth dose data compared to measurements. The modeling process used the full PS information within the geometrical boundaries of the beam including all scattered radiation of the accelerator head. Scattered radiation outside the boundaries was neglected. Photons and electrons were assumed to be radiated from point sources. Four different models were investigated which involved different ways to determine the energies and locations of beam particles in the output plane. Depth dose curves, profiles, and relative output factors were calculated with these models for six field sizes from 5x5 to 40x40cm2 and compared to measurements. Model 1 uses a photon energy spectrum independent of location in the PS plane and a constant photon fluence in this plane. Model 2 takes into account the spatial particle fluence distribution in the PS plane. A constant fluence is used again in model 3, but the photon energy spectrum depends upon the off axis position. Model 4, finally uses the spatial particle fluence distribution and off axis dependent photon energy spectra in the PS plane. Depth dose curves and profiles for field sizes up to 10x10cm2 were not model sensitive. Good agreement between measured and calculated depth dose curves and profiles for all field sizes was reached for model 4. However, increasing deviations were found for increasing field sizes for models 1-3. Large deviations resulted for the profiles of models 2 and 3. This is due to the fact that these models overestimate and underestimate the energy fluence at large off axis distances. Relative output factors consistent with measurements resulted only for model 4.