Literature DB >> 28362373

Proximal Cadaveric Femur Preparation for Fracture Strength Testing and Quantitative CT-based Finite Element Analysis.

Dan Dragomir-Daescu1, Asghar Rezaei2, Susheil Uthamaraj3, Timothy Rossman3, James T Bronk4, Mark Bolander4, Vincent Lambert3, Sean McEligot3, Rachel Entwistle3, Hugo Giambini4, Iwona Jasiuk5, Michael J Yaszemski4, Lichun Lu6.   

Abstract

Cadaveric fracture testing is routinely used to understand factors that affect proximal femur strength. Because ex vivo biological tissues are prone to lose their mechanical properties over time, specimen preparation for experimental testing must be performed carefully to obtain reliable results that represent in vivo conditions. For that reason, we designed a protocol and a set of fixtures to prepare the femoral specimens such that their mechanical properties experienced minimal changes. The femora were kept in a frozen state except during preparation steps and mechanical testing. The relevant clinical measures of total hip and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) were obtained with a clinical dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone densitometer, and the 3D geometry and distribution of bone mineral were obtained using CT with a calibration phantom for quantitative estimations based on the greyscale values. Any possible bone disease, fracture, or the presence of implants or artifacts affecting the bone structure, was ruled out with X-ray scans. For preparation, all bones were carefully cleaned of excess soft tissue, and were cut and potted at the internal rotation angle of interest. A cutting fixture allowed the distal end of the bone to be cut off leaving the proximal femur at a desired length. To allow positioning of the femoral neck at prescribed angles during later CT scanning and mechanical testing, the proximal femoral shafts were potted in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) using a fixture designed specifically for desired orientations. The data collected from our experiments were then used for validation of quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element analysis (FEA), as described in a different protocol. In this manuscript, we present the protocol for the precise bone preparation for mechanical testing and subsequent QCT/FEA modeling. The current protocol was successfully applied to prepare about 200 cadaveric femora over a 6-year time period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28362373      PMCID: PMC5407708          DOI: 10.3791/54925

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis Exp        ISSN: 1940-087X            Impact factor:   1.355


  8 in total

Review 1.  Mechanical testing of bones: the positive synergy of finite-element models and in vitro experiments.

Authors:  Luca Cristofolini; Enrico Schileo; Mateusz Juszczyk; Fulvia Taddei; Saulo Martelli; Marco Viceconti
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2010-06-13       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Cortical and trabecular bone in the femoral neck both contribute to proximal femur failure load prediction.

Authors:  S L Manske; T Liu-Ambrose; D M L Cooper; S Kontulainen; P Guy; B B Forster; H A McKay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Can we trust ex vivo mechanical testing of fresh--frozen cadaveric specimens? The effect of postfreezing delays.

Authors:  Jacob L Cartner; Zane M Hartsell; William M Ricci; Paul Tornetta
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Repeated freeze-thaw cycles do not alter the biomechanical properties of fibular allograft bone.

Authors:  Joshua M Shaw; Shawn A Hunter; J Christopher Gayton; Gregory P Boivin; Michael J Prayson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Jorn Op Den Buijs; Sean McEligot; Yifei Dai; Rachel C Entwistle; Christina Salas; L Joseph Melton; Kevin E Bennet; Sundeep Khosla; Shreyasee Amin
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Femoral Strength Changes Faster With Age Than BMD in Both Women and Men: A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Dan Dragomir-Daescu
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Effect of long-term preservation on the mechanical properties of cortical bone in goats.

Authors:  Emil H van Haaren; Babette C van der Zwaard; Albert J van der Veen; Ide C Heyligers; Paul I J M Wuisman; Theo H Smit
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Embalmed and fresh frozen human bones in orthopedic cadaveric studies: which bone is authentic and feasible?

Authors:  Tobias Topp; Thorben Müller; Sebastian Huss; Peter Herbert Kann; Eberhard Weihe; Steffen Ruchholtz; Ralph Peter Zettl
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 3.717

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  Optimizing Accuracy of Proximal Femur Elastic Modulus Equations.

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Kent D Carlson; Hugo Giambini; Samad Javid; Dan Dragomir-Daescu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  Factors associated with proximal femur fracture determined in a large cadaveric cohort.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Timothy L Rossman; Asghar Rezaei; Kent D Carlson; David F Kallmes; John A Skinner; Sundeep Khosla; Shreyasee Amin
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Are DXA/aBMD and QCT/FEA Stiffness and Strength Estimates Sensitive to Sex and Age?

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Hugo Giambini; Timothy Rossman; Kent D Carlson; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu; Dan Dragomir-Daescu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Zeroth-order finite similitude and scaling of complex geometries in biomechanical experimentation.

Authors:  Raul Ochoa-Cabrero; Teresa Alonso-Rasgado; Keith Davey
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 5.  Percutaneous-Reinforced Osteoplasty: A Review of Emerging Treatment Strategies for Bone Interventions.

Authors:  Nischal Koirala; Jyotsna Joshi; Stephen F Duffy; Gordon McLennan
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 4.964

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.