| Literature DB >> 30729122 |
Maziar Ramezani1, Stefan Klima2,3, Paul Le Clerc de la Herverie1,4, Jean Campo1,4, Jean-Baptiste Le Joncour1,4, Corentin Rouquette1,4, Mario Scholze2, Niels Hammer2,3,5.
Abstract
Introduction. Computational modeling of the human pelvis using the finite elements (FE) method has become increasingly important to understand the mechanisms of load distribution under both healthy and pathologically altered conditions and to develop and assess novel treatment strategies. The number of accurate and validated FE models is however small, and given models fail resembling the physiologic joint motion in particular of the sacroiliac joint. This study is aimed at using an inverted validation approach, using in vitro load deformation data to refine an existing FE model under the same mode of load application and to parametrically assess the influence of altered morphology and mechanical data on the kinematics of the model. Materials and Methods. An osteoligamentous FE model of the pelvis including the fifth lumbar vertebra was used, with highly accurate representations of ligament orientations. Material properties were altered parametrically for bone, cartilage, and ligaments, followed by changes in bone geometry (solid versus 3 and 2 mm shell) and material models (linear elastic, viscoelastic, and hyperelastic isotropic), and the effects of varying ligament fiber orientations were assessed. Results. Elastic modulus changes were more decisive in both linear elastic and viscoelastic bone, cartilage, and ligaments models, especially if shell geometries were used for the pelvic bones. Viscoelastic material properties gave more realistic results. Surprisingly little change was observed as a consequence of altering SIJ ligament orientations. Validation with in vitro experiments using cadavers showed close correlations for movements especially for 3 mm shell viscoelastic model. Discussion. This study has used an inverted validation approach to refine an existing FE model, to give realistic and accurate load deformation data of the osteoligamentous pelvis and showed which variation in the outcomes of the models are attributed to altered material properties and models. The given approach furthermore shows the value of accurate validation and of using the validation data to fine tune FE models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30729122 PMCID: PMC6343175 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3973170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Number of nodes, elements, and element type for the different geometries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Solid model | 151,642 | 87,233 | tetrahedral |
|
| |||
| 2-mm shell | 282,581 | 195,611 | quadrilateral, trilateral (dominant) |
| 3-mm shell | |||
Assigned material properties for linear elastic and viscoelastic models, obtained from literature [29–36].
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Bone | ||
| Elastic modulus | 11 x 103 MPa | 13 x 103 MPa |
| Variation elastic modulus | 6 - 22 x 103 MPa | 10 - 16 x 103 MPa |
| Poisson ratio | 0.26 | 0.26 |
| Variation poisson ratio | 0.20 - 0.32 | 0.20 - 0.32 |
| Bulk modulus | 9.03 x 103 MPa | |
| Shear modulus | 5.16 x 103 MPa | |
| Prony volumetric relaxation | ||
| Relative modulus | 0.713 | |
| Relaxation time | 6.9 sec | |
| Density | 1640 kg/m3 | |
|
| ||
| Cartilage | ||
| Elastic modulus | 4.5 MPa | 4.5 MPa |
| Variation elastic modulus | 1 - 8 | |
| Poisson ratio | 0.20 | 0.21 |
| Bulk modulus | 2.59 x 103 Pa | |
| Shear modulus | 1.86 x 103 Pa | |
| Prony volumetric relaxation | ||
| Relative modulus | 0.713 | |
| Relaxation time | 6.9 sec | |
| Variation | 0.14 - 0.26 | 0.12 - 0.30 |
|
| ||
| Ligament | ||
| Elastic modulus | 350 MPa | 350 MPa |
| Variation | 100 – 800 MPa | 100 - 800 MPa |
Figure 1Anterior (top left) and left lateral (top right) view of the loading conditions in the cadaveric pelvises in the cadaveric experiments and in the in silico modeling (bottom). The yellow points indicate the areas where pelvis deformation was assessed, the blue points indicate the areas where SIJ deformation was measured (both exemplarily for the left side).
Figure 2(a) Overview bone; parametric change of (b) linear elastic bone properties (solid), (c) viscoelastic bone (solid) with linear elastic cartilage and ligaments, (d) viscoelastic (solid) bone, cartilage and ligaments, and (e) change in bone geometry in a model (solid versus shell) with viscoelastic properties of bone and cartilage, linear elastic ligaments. The bottom figure shows the related deformation in a 2 mm shell model.
Figure 3(a) Overview cartilage; parametric change of (b) linear elastic cartilage, (c) viscoelastic cartilage, and (d) hyperelastic cartilage (all solid bone).
Changes in material laws for ligaments, sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and pubic symphysis and resulting deformation (x and y refer to the ISB standard axes).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Linear elastic material properties | 0.462 | 0.051 |
| SIJ and pubic symphysis with hyper elastic values for x | 0.609 | 0.076 |
| SIJ and pubic symphysis with hyper elastic values for y | 0.611 | 0.076 |
| SIJ and pubic symphysis with hyper elastic values for x, ligaments with viscoelastic values n | 0.611 | 0.076 |
| SIJ and pubic symphysis with hyper elastic values for y, ligaments with viscoelastic values n | 0.613 | 0.076 |
| SIJ and pubic symphysis with hyper elastic values for x, ligaments with viscoelastic values m | 0.610 | 0.076 |
Figure 4(a) Overview ligaments, (b) parametric analysis in linear elastic model, (c) deformations at a linear elastic model (top: anterior view, center: lateral view, and bottom: posterior view), (d) parametric analysis in viscoelastic model, (e) deformations at a viscoelastic model (top: anterior view, center: lateral view, and bottom: posterior view), (f) influence of sacroiliac ligament orientation. Global and local deformations were larger in the viscoelastic model compared to the linear elastic model, and in line with the real case scenario loads were distributed more homogeneously.