Literature DB >> 17227093

The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs.

M Papini1, R Zdero, E H Schemitsch, P Zalzal.   

Abstract

To assess the performance of femoral orthopedic implants, they are often attached to cadaveric femurs, and biomechanical testing is performed. To identify areas of high stress, stress shielding, and to facilitate implant redesign, these tests are often accompanied by finite element (FE) models of the bone/implant system. However, cadaveric bone suffers from wide specimen to specimen variability both in terms of bone geometry and mechanical properties, making it virtually impossible for experimental results to be reproduced. An alternative approach is to utilize synthetic femurs of standardized geometry, having material behavior approximating that of human bone, but with very small specimen to specimen variability. This approach allows for repeatable experimental results and a standard geometry for use in accompanying FE models. While the synthetic bones appear to be of appropriate geometry to simulate bone mechanical behavior, it has not, however, been established what bone quality they most resemble, i.e., osteoporotic or osteopenic versus healthy bone. Furthermore, it is also of interest to determine whether FE models of synthetic bones, with appropriate adjustments in input material properties or geometric size, could be used to simulate the mechanical behavior of a wider range of bone quality and size. To shed light on these questions, the axial and torsional stiffness of cadaveric femurs were compared to those measured on synthetic femurs. A FE model, previously validated by the authors to represent the geometry of a synthetic femur, was then used with a range of input material properties and change in geometric size, to establish whether cadaveric results could be simulated. Axial and torsional stiffnesses and rigidities were measured for 25 human cadaveric femurs (simulating poor bone stock) and three synthetic "third generation composite" femurs (3GCF) (simulating normal healthy bone stock) in the midstance orientation. The measured results were compared, under identical loading conditions, to those predicted by a previously validated three-dimensional finite element model of the 3GCF at a variety of Young's modulus values. A smaller FE model of the 3GCF was also created to examine the effects of a simple change in bone size. The 3GCF was found to be significantly stiffer (2.3 times in torsional loading, 1.7 times in axial loading) than the presently utilized cadaveric samples. Nevertheless, the FE model was able to successfully simulate both the behavior of the 3GCF, and a wide range of cadaveric bone data scatter by an appropriate adjustment of Young's modulus or geometric size. The synthetic femur had a significantly higher stiffness than the cadaveric bone samples. The finite element model provided a good estimate of upper and lower bounds for the axial and torsional stiffness of human femurs because it was effective at reproducing the geometric properties of a femur. Cadaveric bone experiments can be used to calibrate FE models' input material properties so that bones of varying quality can be simulated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17227093     DOI: 10.1115/1.2401178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  20 in total

1.  Biomechanics of the Proximal Radius Following Drilling of the Bicipital Tuberosity to Mimic Cortical Button Distal Biceps Repair Technique.

Authors:  Nikhil R Oak; John R Lien; Alexander Brunfeldt; Jeffrey N Lawton
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2017-03-23

2.  Application of Design Aspects in Uniaxial Loading Machine Development.

Authors:  Robert P Thoerner; Jonathan D King; Marnie M Saunders
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  The effect of screw tunnels on the biomechanical stability of vertebral body after pedicle screws removal: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jia-Ming Liu; Yu Zhang; Yang Zhou; Xuan-Yin Chen; Shan-Hu Huang; Zi-Kai Hua; Zhi-Li Liu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements.

Authors:  Habiba Bougherara; Rad Zdero; Suraj Shah; Milan Miric; Marcello Papini; Paul Zalzal; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Lateral drill holes decrease strength of the femur: an observational study using finite element and experimental analyses.

Authors:  Melanie J Fox; Jennie M Scarvell; Paul N Smith; Shankar Kalyanasundaram; Zbigniew H Stachurski
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Two Intramedullary Implants for Subtrochanteric Fracture in Two Healing Stages: A Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Xinlei Wu; Ming Yang; Lijun Wu; Wenxin Niu
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 1.781

7.  BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF MEDIAL VERSUS LATERAL SIDED PLATING IN FEMORAL FRACTURES.

Authors:  Firat Al; Bilgehan Tosun; Tamer Sinmazcelik; Mustafa Ozmen
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 0.513

8.  In vitro testing of femoral impaction grafting with porous titanium particles: a pilot study.

Authors:  René Aquarius; Luc Walschot; Pieter Buma; Berend Willem Schreurs; Nico Verdonschot
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Does Screw Location Affect the Risk of Subtrochanteric Femur Fracture After Femoral Neck Fixation? A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Erica K Crump; Michael Quacinella; Bradley K Deafenbaugh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.755

10.  Mechanistic, mathematical model to predict the dynamics of tissue genesis in bone defects via mechanical feedback and mediation of biochemical factors.

Authors:  Shannon R Moore; Gerald M Saidel; Ulf Knothe; Melissa L Knothe Tate
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.