| Literature DB >> 32016806 |
Pusheng Xie1,2,3, Yuping Deng1,2,3, Jinchuan Tan1,2,3, Mian Wang1,2,3, Yang Yang1,2,3, Hanbin Ouyang4, Wenhua Huang5,6,7,8.
Abstract
To explore the mechanical mechanism and provide preoperative planning basis for transtrochanteric rotational osteotomy (TRO) procedure, a joint-preserving procedure for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Eleven TRO finite element femurs with the most common types of necrosis were analyzed under multi-loading conditions. Thereafter, we made a comprehensive evaluation by considering the anatomy characters, daily activities, and risk indicators contain necrosis expansion trend, necrotic blood supply pressure, and the risk of fracture. The risk of fracture (ROF) is the lowest when standing on feet and increases gradually during normal walking and walking upstairs and downstairs. Compared with posterior rotation, rotating forward keeps more elements at low risk. Additionally, the correlation analysis shows it has a strong negative correlation (R2 = 0.834) with the average modulus of the roof. TRO finally decreased the stress and energy effectively. However, the stress and strain energy arise when rotated posteriorly less than 120°. The comprehensive evaluation observed that rotating forward 90°could reduce the total risks to 64%. TRO is an effective technique to prevent collapse. For the anterior and superior large necrosis, we recommend to rotate forward 60° to 90° (more efficient) or backward 180°. The methodology followed in this study could provide accurate and personalize preoperative planning. Graphical Abstract A proximal femur was reconstructed and modified using Mimics from a series of computed tomography. The models were meshed after solidified and performed different osteotomy, and then assigned material based on the Hounsfield Unit from CT images. Finally, 44 different TRO finite element femurs were analyzed under multi-loading conditions and evaluated comprehensively.Entities:
Keywords: Finite element analysis; Osteonecrosis of the femoral head; Risk of collapse; Routine activity; Transtrochanteric rotational osteotomy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32016806 PMCID: PMC7156356 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-020-02137-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput ISSN: 0140-0118 Impact factor: 2.602
Fig. 1Transtrochanteric rotational osteotomy operation schematic diagram. Osteotomy was performed via three resected surface, and then the femur head was rotated through the neck axis (a).The boundary and loading condition were applied on the TRO femur (b). Different rotational degrees (c)
Joint contact forces for the four routine activities
| Load case | Magnitude(BW) | Unit vector | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feet standing | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Normal walking | 2.38 | − 0.544 | − 0.325 | 2.249 |
| Upstairs | 2.51 | − 0.601 | − 0.614 | 2.367 |
| Downstairs | 2.60 | − 0.599 | − 0.387 | 2.533 |
The magnitude is in units of body weight (BW)
A body weight of 600 N was assumed for the present analyses
The axis x is parallel to the transverse plane and pointed to the interior, y is toward the front, and z is parallel to the idealized midline of the femur and toward inferior
Convergence test of the FEA models
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Element type | C3D10 | ||||
| Size (mm) | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2 | 2.4 | 1.4 |
| Element numbers | 497,741 | 238,810 | 140,499 | 94,302 | 358,645 |
| Node numbers | 706,316 | 342,582 | 202,997 | 137,130 | 510,962 |
| Max stress (MPa) in femur and changed ratio (%) | 34.29 (0) | 32.05 (6.53) | 29.41 (14.23) | 27.7 (19.22) | 35.29 (0.29) |
| Max stress (MPa) in necrosis and changed ratio (%) | 11.42 (0) | 12.08 (5.779) | 9.972 (12.68) | 11.41 (0.088) | 11.44 (0.175) |
Fig. 6The biomechanical experimental validation. a The boundary and loading condition of the FEA group (left) and experimental group (right). The corresponding force and displacement data (b). The anterior surfaces of samples were painted with spray-paint for DIC with white background color and a black random speckle pattern (c). And the average strain results under 2100 N of the observation areas (left side of d) are compared in right side of d. (n = 5)
Fig. 2Comparison of the four levels ROF after different TRO under four load cases in relation to the intact femur
Fig. 3Boxplots about the ROF of the femurs after TRO under four different load cases
Fig. 4The average ROF (a) and modulus (b) of different TRO models. Correlation analysis result (c)
Fig. 5The percentage of ALLSE (a) and von Mises stress (b) remained on the necrotic area after TRO. c Considering four daily activities and three index values (ALLSE, stress, and ROF) comprehensively