Literature DB >> 24907128

Prediction of structural failure of tibial bone models under physiological loads: effect of CT density-modulus relationships.

Mahmut Tuncer1, Ulrich N Hansen1, Andrew A Amis2.   

Abstract

Although finite element (FE) models can provide distinct benefits in understanding knee biomechanics, in particular the response of the knee to implants, their usefulness is limited by the modelling assumptions and input parameters. This study highlights the uncertainty of material input parameters derived from the literature and its limitation on the accuracy and usefulness of FE models of the tibia. An FE model of the intact human knee and a database of knee forces (muscles, ligaments and medial and lateral tibio-femoral contacts) were developed for walking and stair-descent activities. Ten models were constructed from ten different combinations of apparent bone density to elastic modulus material property relationships, published in the literature. Some of the published material property relationships led to predictions of bone strains in the proximal tibia which exceeded published failure criteria under loads imposed by normal activities. These relationships appear not to be applicable for the human tibia. There is a large discrepancy in proposed relationships that cover the cancellous bone density range. For FE models of the human tibia, the material relationship proposed by Morgan et al., which assumed species and anatomic site dependence, produced the most believable results for cancellous bone. In addition to casting doubt on the use of some of the published density-modulus relationships for analysis of the human proximal tibia, this study highlights the need for further experimental work to characterise the behaviour of bone with intermediate densities.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone; Elastic modulus–density relationship; Finite element method; Strain failure criterion; Tibia

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24907128     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  10 in total

Review 1.  Patient-Specific Bone Multiscale Modelling, Fracture Simulation and Risk Analysis-A Survey.

Authors:  Amadeus C S de Alcântara; Israel Assis; Daniel Prada; Konrad Mehle; Stefan Schwan; Lucia Costa-Paiva; Munir S Skaf; Luiz C Wrobel; Paulo Sollero
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.623

2.  The Design and In Vivo Testing of a Locally Stiffness-Matched Porous Scaffold.

Authors:  Shaaz Ghouse; Natalie Reznikov; Oliver R Boughton; Sarat Babu; K C Geoffrey Ng; Gordon Blunn; Justin P Cobb; Molly M Stevens; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Appl Mater Today       Date:  2019-03-14

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part II: Influence of loading and fixation design on tibial bone-implant interaction.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Brett D Steineman; Daniel R Sturnick; Jonathan T Deland; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Timothy M Wright
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Do Metaphyseal Cones and Stems Provide Any Biomechanical Advantage for Moderate Contained Tibial Defects in Revision TKA? A Finite-Element Analysis Based on a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Kathleen N Meyers; Nicholas Schraut; Kapil G Mehrotra; Joseph D Lipman; Timothy M Wright; Michael P Ast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Validation of Material Algorithms for Femur Remodelling Using Medical Image Data.

Authors:  Shitong Luo; Xingquan Shen; Xin Bai; Jing Bai; Jianning Han; Yu Shang
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 1.781

6.  Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains.

Authors:  Ran S Sopher; Andrew A Amis; James D Calder; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Mechanical Metrics of the Proximal Tibia are Precise and Differentiate Osteoarthritic and Normal Knees: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Hanieh Arjmand; Majid Nazemi; Saija A Kontulainen; Christine E McLennan; David J Hunter; David R Wilson; James D Johnston
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Total and partial knee arthroplasty implants that maintain native load transfer in the tibia.

Authors:  Maxwell J Munford; Jennifer C Stoddart; Alexander D Liddle; Justin P Cobb; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 5.853

9.  The risk of tibial eminence avulsion fracture with bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty : a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer C Stoddart; Amy Garner; Mahmut Tuncer; Justin P Cobb; Richard J van Arkel
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 4.410

10.  Additive manufactured push-fit implant fixation with screw-strength pull out.

Authors:  Richard J van Arkel; Shaaz Ghouse; Piers E Milner; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.494

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.