| Literature DB >> 35265599 |
Mian Wang1,2, Yuping Deng1,2,3, Pusheng Xie1,4, Jinchuan Tan1, Yang Yang1,3, Hanbin Ouyang1,5, Dongliang Zhao2,6, Gang Huang3, Wenhua Huang1,3,4.
Abstract
The treatment of fractures of the distal tibia can be problematic due to the insubstantial soft-tissue covering this part of the anatomy. This study investigates a novel strategy for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of distal tibia fractures called bionic lightweight design plating. Following the structure of the animal trabecular bone, we utilized topological mathematical methods to redesign the material layout of the internal fixation device to fulfill the desired lightweight design within given boundary conditions. The results showed that this method can maintain the same stability of the construct as the original plate after a reduction in the original volume by 30%, and the differences in strain energy of plates and maximum node displacement of constructs between the constructs [RP construct vs. LP construct] were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In the safety assessment of the constructs, the peak stress of plates between constructs was found to not be statistically significantly different under a doubled physiological load (p > 0.05). The average stress of the plates' elements exceeding the allowable stress was analyzed, and no statistically significant differences were found between the two constructs under axial compression stress conditions (p > 0.05). The average stress of the plates' elements in the redesigned plating construct under torsional stress conditions was 3.08% less than that of the locked plating construct (p < 0.05). Under the double physiological load condition, 89% of the elements of the plate in the redesigned plating construct and 85% of the elements of the plate in the locked plating construct were lower than the maximum safe stress of the plate, which was 410 MPa (secondary allowable stresses). That reminds us the topology optimization offer a possible way to improve the capacity of soft tissue protection while ensuring the safety of the RP construct by reducing the volume of the implants.Entities:
Keywords: distal tibial fractures; internal fixation; low-profile; plate; topology optimization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35265599 PMCID: PMC8901108 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.820921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Construction of lightweight design plates inspired by trabecular bone biomechanical responses. (A) Topological optimization technical route. (B) Finite element simulation boundary conditions. (C) Implantation shape before and after optimization.
Types of elements, number of nodes, and number of elements in each part of the model.
| Parts | Element type | Number of elements | Number of nodes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tibia | C3D10 | 56,804 | 84,837 |
| Screw | C3D10 | 269,041 | 175,364 |
| Locking Plate | C3D10 | 142,407 | 215,871 |
| Redesigned Plate | C3D10 | 419,629 | 624,277 |
FIGURE 2Schematic diagram of the internal implantation of the distal tibia fracture implant. (A) The relative position and morphology of the tibia and the soft tissue of the skin and the blood vessels passing through it under physiological conditions. (B) The strain increases after LP implantation and causes the strain of the strain direction to increase and the strain in the vertical direction to increase. This leads the soft tissue and blood vessels to stretch with the affected blood the supply. (C) After implantation, with smaller , the strain of the strain direction is reduced, and the strain in the vertical direction is reduced, and the deformation of the soft tissue and blood vessels is reduced.
Loading conditions and load values corresponding to each construct of LP and RP e.g., LP-A350 means the LP construct uses 350 N as the load value under axial compression loading conditions.
| Axial compression | Torsion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Load (N) | LP | RP | Load (N·mm) | LP | RP |
| 50 | LP-A50 | RP-A50 | 1000 | LP-T100 | RP-T100 |
| 100 | LP-A100 | RP-A100 | 1500 | LP-T150 | RP-T150 |
| 150 | LP-A150 | RP-A150 | 2000 | LP-T200 | RP-T200 |
| 200 | LP-A200 | RP-A200 | 2500 | LP-T250 | RP-T250 |
| 250 | LP-A250 | RP-A250 | 3000 | LP-T300 | RP-T300 |
| 300 | LP-A300 | RP-A300 | 3500 | LP-T350 | RP-T350 |
| 350 | LP-A350 | RP-A350 | 4000 | LP-T400 | RP-T400 |
| 400 | LP-A400 | RP-A400 | 4500 | LP-T450 | RP-T450 |
| 450 | LP-A450 | RP-A450 | 5000 | LP-T500 | RP-T500 |
| 500 | LP-A500 | RP-A500 | 5500 | LP-T550 | RP-T550 |
| 550 | LP-A550 | RP-A550 | 6000 | LP-T600 | RP-T600 |
| 600 | LP-A600 | RP-A600 | 6500 | LP-T650 | RP-T650 |
| 650 | LP-A650 | RP-A650 | 7000 | LP-T700 | RP-T700 |
| 700 | LP-A700 | RP-A700 | — | — | — |
FIGURE 4Maximum node displacement and construct stiffness. (A) Constructs’ maximum nodal displacement increases with load under axial compression load conditions. (B) Comparison of LP and RP construct axial compression stiffness with the stiffness values reported in the literature. (C) Constructs’ maximum nodal displacement increases with load under torsional load conditions. (D) Comparison of the torsional stiffness of LP and RP construct with the stiffness of previous studies.
Relationship between stress strain and volume in theoretical model.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIGURE 3The strain energy (ALLSE) of whole the LP and RP construct changes with the load under axial compression load conditions and torsional load conditions. (A) Change in ALLSE in the LP and RP constructs under different axial compression load values (B) Statistical analyses of ALLSE for the LP and RP constructs under all axial compression load values (p > 0.05) (C) Change in ALLSE in the LP and RP constructs under different torsional load values (D) Statistical analyses of ALLSE for the LP and RP constructs under all torsion load values (p > 0.05).
FIGURE 5Plate stress analyses. (A) Peak stress with difference load values for two kinds of plates under axial compression conditions. (B) Statistical analyses of peak stress of the load values of LP and RP plate under axial compression conditions (p > 0.05). (C) Peak stress with difference load values for two kinds of plates under torsion conditions. (D) Statistical analyses of peak stress of the load values of LP and RP plate under torsion conditions (p > 0.05). (E) Stress distribution of LP and RP plate under axial compression load conditions with a standard physiological load and twice that in the physiological load case. (F) Stress distribution of LP and RP plate under torsional conditions with a standard physiological load and twice that in the physiological load case.
FIGURE 6Elemental stress distribution. (A) Stress distribution under load values of the LP plate element in axial compression load conditions. (B) Stress distribution under load values of the RP plate element in axial compression load conditions. (C) Stress distribution under load values of the LP plate element in torsional load conditions. (D) Stress distribution under load values of the RP plate element in torsional load conditions. (E) Number of the elements which exceeds the allowable stress of 275 MPa under axial compression conditions in twice that of the physiological load case (p > 0.05). (F) Number of elements which exceeds the allowable stress of 275 MPa under torsion conditions in twice that of the physiological load case (p < 0.05).