Patient-specific finite element analysis of the human femur-A double-blinded biomechanical validation

Journal of Biomechanics

Volumn 44, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1666-1672

  Trabelsi, Nir ^a   Yosibash, Zohar ^a   Wutte, Christof ^b,c   Augat, Peter ^b,c   Eberle, Sebastian ^b,c  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b BG UNFALLKLINIK MURNAU   (Germany)

^c PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Bone experiments; Femur; Finite element method; Validation

Indexed keywords

ABSOLUTE DEVIATIONS; AXIAL STIFFNESS; BIOMECHANICAL RESPONSE; BONE SURFACE; CLINICAL APPLICATION; COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN BONES; IN-VITRO; LOCAL DISPLACEMENT; NUMERICAL ERRORS; NUMERICAL RESULTS; RESEARCH GROUPS; RESEARCH INSTITUTES; SAMPLE SIZES; VALIDATION;

BIOMECHANICS; BONE; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS; EXPERIMENTS; MEDICAL COMPUTING;

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE STRESS; CADAVER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IN VITRO STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGIDITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIOMECHANICS; BONE AND BONES; CADAVER; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TENSILE STRENGTH;

EID: 79956069889     PISSN: 00219290     EISSN: 18732380     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.03.024     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bessho M., Ohnishi I., Matsuyama J., Matsumoto T., Imai K., Nakamura K. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J. Biomechanics 2007, 40:1745-1753.
2. Cody D.D., Hou F.J., Divine G.W., Fyhrie D.P. Short term in vivo study of proximal femoral finite element modeling. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2000, 28:408-414.
3. Cody D.D., Gross G.J., Hou F.J., Spencer H.J., Goldstein S.A., Fyhrie D.P. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J. Biomech. 1999, 32:1013-1020.
4. Cristofolini L., Viceconti M., Cappello A., Toni A. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J. Biomech. 1996, 29(4):525-535.
5. Eberle S., Gerber C., von Oldenburg G., Hungerer S., Augat P. Type of hip fracture determines load share in intramedullary osteosynthesis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467:1972-1980.
6. Helgason B., Perilli E., Schileo E., Taddei F., Brynjolfsson S., Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin. Biomech. 2008, 23:135-146.
7. Helgason B., Taddei F., Palsson H., Schileo E., Cristofolini L., Brynjolfsson M., Vicecont S. A modified method for assigning material properties to FE models of bones. Med. Eng. Phys. 2008, 30:444-453.
8. Keaveny T.M. Biomechanical computed tomography-noninvasive bone strength analysis using clinical computed tomography scans. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1192:65-75.
9. Keller T.S. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J. Biomech. 1994, 27:1159-1168.
10. Keyak J., Falkinstein Y. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Med. Eng. Phys. 2003, 25:781-787.
11. Keyak J.H., Meagher J.M., Skinner H.B., Mote C.D. Automated three dimensional finite element modelling of bone: a new method. J. Biomed. Eng. 1990, 12:389-397.
12. Morgan E.F., Bayraktar H.H., Keaveny T.M. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J. Biomechanics 2003, 36:897-904.
13. Papini M., Zdero R., Schemitsch E.H., Zalzal P. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs. J. Biomech. Eng.-Trans. ASME 2007, 129:12-19.
14. Schileo E., Dall'Ara E., Taddei F., Malandrino A, Schotkamp T., Viceconti M., Baleani M. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J. Biomech. 2008, 41(11):2483-2491.
15. Schileo E., Taddei F., Malandrino A., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J. Biomech. 2007, 40:2982-2989.
16. Speirs A.D., Heller M.O., Duda G.N., Taylor W.R. Physiologically based boundary conditions in finite element modelling. J. Biomech. 2007, 40:2318-2323.
17. Szabo B., Babuska I. Finite Element Analysis 1991, Wiley.
18. Taddei F., Schileo E., Helgason B., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. Med. Eng. Phys. 2007, 29:973-979.
19. Taddei F., Cristofolini L., Martelli S., Gill H.S., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J. Biomech. 2006, 39:2457-2467.
20. Trabelsi N., Yosibash Z., Milgrom C. Validation of subject specific automated p-FE analysis of the proximal femur. J. Biomech. 2009, 42:234-241.
21. Yosibash Z., Trabelsi N., Milgrom C. Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J. Biomech. 2007, 40:3688-3699.
22. Yosibash Z., Padan R., Joscowicz L., Milgrom C. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. ASME J. Biomech. Eng. 2007, 129(3):297-309.