Patient-specific finite element modeling of bones

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine

Volumn 227, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 464-478

  Poelert, Sander ^a   Valstar, Edward ^a,b   Weinans, Harrie ^a,c   Zadpoor, Amir A ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bone; Finite element method; Implants; Patient specific

Indexed keywords

COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; FINITE ELEMENT MODELING; FINITE ELEMENT MODELS; FRACTURE RISK ASSESSMENTS; PATIENT SPECIFIC; PATIENT-SPECIFIC FINITE ELEMENT MODELS; PATIENT-SPECIFIC MODELING; SEGMENTATION ALGORITHMS; IMPLANT PLACEMENT; ORTHOPEDIC IMPLANT; PATIENT SPECIFIC MODEL; TOMOGRAPHY IMAGING;

BONE; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL PROSTHESES; DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS; MEDICAL COMPUTING; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD;

ALGORITHM; ANISOTROPY; BIOMECHANICS; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BONE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; FRACTURE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMPLANT; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL STRESS; METHODOLOGY; ORTHOPEDICS; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT-SPECIFIC; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; REVIEW; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BONE; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; IMPLANTS; PATIENT-SPECIFIC;

ALGORITHMS; ANISOTROPY; BIOMECHANICS; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BONE AND BONES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, THEORETICAL; ORTHOPEDICS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84877806368     PISSN: 09544119     EISSN: 20413033     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0954411912467884     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41(5): 778-799.
2. Riggs B and Melton L 3rd. The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 1995; 17(5 Suppl.): 505S-511S.
3. Yelin EHUS. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, medical Expenditures Panel Survey, 1996-2004. UCSF, San Fransisco, USA, Institute for Health Policy Studies.
4. Jacobs JJ, Dormans JP, Gnatz SM, et al. United States bone and joint decade: the burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2008.
5. Woolf PA. E-lecture: principles of health care economics. 2009.
6. Huiskes R and Chao EYS. A survey of finite element analysis in orthopedic biomechanics: the first decade. J Biomech 1983; 16(6): 385-409.
7. Little JP, Taddei F, Viceconti M, et al. Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: response to physiological loads. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007; 22(4): 440-448.
8. Abdul-Kadir MR, Hansen U, Klabunde R, et al. Finite element modelling of primary hip stem stability: the effect of interference fit. J Biomech 2008; 41(3): 587-594.
9. Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, et al. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 1997; 31(2): 125-133.
10. Cody DD, Gross GJ, Hou JF, et al. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J Biomech 1999; 32(10): 1013-1020.
11. Tanck E, Van Aken J, Van der Linden Y, et al. Pathological fracture prediction in patients with metastatic lesions can be improved with quantitative computed tomography based computer models. Bone 2009; 45(4): 777-783.
12. Crawford RP, Cann CE and Keaveny TM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone 2003; 33(4): 744-750.
13. Viceconti M, Testi D, Taddei F, et al. Biomechanics modeling of the musculoskeletal apparatus: status and key issues. P IEEE 2006; 94(4): 725-739.
14. Heimann T and Meinzer HP. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal 2009; 13(4): 543-563.
15. Cahir JG, Toms AP, Marshall TJ, et al. CT and MRI of hip arthroplasty. Clin Radiol 2007; 62(12): 1163-1171.
16. Link T, Majumdar S, Augat P, et al. In vivo high resolution MRI of the calcaneus: differences in trabecular structure in osteoporosis patients. J Bone Miner Res 1998; 13(7): 1175-1182.
17. Majumdar S, Genant H, Grampp S, et al. Analysis of trabecular bone structure in the distal radius using highresolution MRI. Eur Radiol 1994; 4(6): 517-524.
18. Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003; 85(1): 47-59.
19. Shim VB, Pitto RP, Streicher RM, et al. The use of sparse CT datasets for auto-generating accurate FE models of the femur and pelvis. J Biomech 2007; 40(1): 26-35.
20. Shim VB, Pitto RP, Streicher RM, et al. Development and validation of patient-specific finite element models of the hemipelvis generated from a sparse CT data set. J Biomech Eng 2008; 130(5): 051010.
21. Homminga J, Huiskes R, Van Rietbergen B, et al. Introduction and evaluation of a gray-value voxel conversion technique. J Biomech 2001; 34(4): 513-517.
22. Kim CH, Zhang H, Mikhail G, et al. Effects of thresholding techniques on microCT-based finite element models of trabecular bone. J Biomech Eng 2007; 129(4): 481-486.
23. Ulrich D, Hildebrand T, Van Rietbergen B, et al. The quality of trabecular bone evaluated with microcomputed tomography, FEA and mechanical testing. In: Lowet G, Ru egsegger P, Weinans H, Meunier A, (Eds.), Bone Research in Biomechanics. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 97D112.
24. Verhulp E, Van Rietbergen B and Huiskes R. Comparison of micro-level and continuum-level voxel models of the proximal femur. J Biomech 2006; 39(16): 2951-2957.
25. Harrigan TP, Jasty M, Mann RW, et al. Limitations of the continuum assumption in cancellous bone. J Biomech 1988; 21(4): 269-275.
26. Prevrhal S, Engelke K and Kalender WA. Accuracy limits for the determination of cortical width and density: the influence of object size and CT imaging parameters. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 751-764.
27. Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, et al. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech 2006; 39(13): 2457-2467.
28. Keyak J and 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(9): 781-787.
29. Trabelsi N, Yosibash Z and Milgrom C. Validation of subject-specific automated p-FE analysis of the proximal femur. J Biomech 2009; 42(3): 234-241.
30. Viceconti M and Bellingeri L. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs. Med Eng Phys 1997; 20(1): 1-10.
31. Bucki M, Lobos C and Payan Y. A fast and robust patient specific finite element mesh registration technique: application to 60 clinical cases. Med Image Anal 2010; 14(3): 303-317.
32. Gamage P, Xie S, Delmas P, et al. Segmentation of radiographic images under topological constraints: application to the femur. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2010; 5(5): 425-435.
33. Truc P, Kim T-S, Lee S, et al. A study on the feasibility of active contours on automatic CT bone segmentation. J Digit Imaging 2010; 23(6): 793-805.
34. Pardo XM, Carreira MJ, Mosquera A, et al. A snake for CT image segmentation integrating region and edge information. Image Vis Comput 2001; 19(7): 461-475.
35. Yao W, Abolmaesumi P, Greenspan M, et al. An estimation/correction algorithm for detecting bone edges in CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005; 24(8): 997-1010.
36. Dong X and Zheng G. Automatic extraction of proximal femur contours from calibrated X-ray images using 3D statistical models. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.
37. Seise M, McKenna SJ, Ricketts IW, et al. Parts-based segmentation with overlapping part models using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Image Vis Comput 2009; 27(5): 504-513.
38. Chan TF and Vese LA. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process 2001; 10(2): 266-277.
39. Varghese B, Short D, Penmetsa R, et al. Computedtomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurately capture strain response to bending and torsion. J Biomech 2011; 44(7): 1374-1379.
40. Pahr DH and Zysset PK. From high-resolution CT data to finite element models: development of an integrated modular framework. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2009; 12(1): 45-57.
41. Viceconti M, Davinelli M, Taddei F, et al. Automatic generation of accurate subject-specific bone finite element models to be used in clinical studies. J Biomech 2004; 37(10): 1597-1605.
42. Anderson AE, Peters CL, Tuttle BD, et al. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation and sensitivity studies. J Biomech Eng 2005; 127(3): 364-373.
43. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Frich LH. A three-dimensional finite element model from computed tomography data: a semi-automated method. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2001; 215(2): 203-213.
44. Gupta S, Van der Helm F, Sterk J, et al. Development and experimental validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the human scapula. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2004; 218(2): 127-142.
45. Zhang QH, Wang JY, Lupton C, et al. A subject-specific pelvic bone model and its application to cemented acetabular replacements. J Biomech 2010; 43(14): 2722-2727.
46. Taddei F, Pancanti A and Viceconti M. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys 2004; 26(1): 61-69.
47. Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joskowicz L, et al. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. J Biomech Eng 2007; 129(3): 297-309.
48. Zannoni C, Mantovani R and Viceconti M. Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Med Eng Phys 1999; 20(10): 735-740.
49. Zioupos P, Cook RB and Hutchinson Jr. Some basic relationships between density values in cancellous and cortical bone. J Biomech 2008; 41(9): 1961-1968.
50. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, et al. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008; 23(2): 135-146.
51. Schileo E, Taddei F, Cristofolini L, et al. Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. J Biomech 2008; 41(2): 356-367.
52. Laz PJ, Stowe JQ, Baldwin MA, et al. Incorporating uncertainty in mechanical properties for finite elementbased evaluation of bone mechanics. J Biomech 2007; 40(13): 2831-2836.
53. Helgason B, Taddei F, Pálsson H, et al. A modified method for assigning material properties to FE models of bones. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30(4): 444-453.
54. Newitt D, Majumdar S, Van Rietbergen B, et al. In vivo assessment of architecture and micro-finite element analysis derived indices of mechanical properties of trabecular bone in the radius. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13(1): 6-17.
55. Mansat P, Barea C, Hobatho M, et al. Anatomic variation of the mechanical properties of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998; 7(2): 109-115.
56. Baca V, Horak Z, Mikulenka P, et al. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30(7): 924-930.
57. Peng L, Bai J, Zeng X, et al. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys 2006; 28(3): 227-233.
58. Yang H, Ma X and Guo T. Some factors that affect the comparison between isotropic and orthotropic inhomogeneous finite element material models of femur. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32(6): 553-560.
59. Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, et al. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech 2000; 33(10): 1325-1330.
60. Polgar K, Gill HS and Viceconti M. Strain distribution within the human femur due to physiological and simplified loading: finite element analysis using the muscle standardized femur model. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2003; 217(3): 173-189.
61. Fernandez J and Hunter P. An anatomically based patient-specific finite element model of patella articulation: towards a diagnostic tool. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2005; 4(1): 20-38.
62. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001; 34(7): 859-871.
63. Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Maas SA, et al. Validation of finite element predictions of cartilage contact pressure in the human hip joint. J Biomech Eng 2008; 130(5): 051008-1-051008-10.
64. Nikooyan AA and Zadpoor AA. An improved cost function for modeling of muscle activity during running. J Biomech 2011; 44(5): 984-987.
65. Zadpoor AA and Nikooyan AA. A mechanical model to determine the influence of masses and mass distribution on the impact force during running - a discussion. J Biomech 2006; 39(2): 388-390.
66. Zadpoor AA and Nikooyan AA. Modeling muscle activity to study the effects of footwear on the impact forces and vibrations of the human body during running. J Biomech 2010; 43(2): 186-193.
67. Zadpoor AA, Nikooyan AA and Arshi AR. A modelbased parametric study of impact force during running. J Biomech 2007; 40(9): 2012-2021.
68. Nikooyan AA and Zadpoor AA. Effects of muscle fatigue on the ground reaction force and soft-tissue vibrations during running: a model study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012; 59(3): 797-804.
69. Nikooyan AA and Zadpoor AA. Mass-spring-damper modelling of the human body to study running and hopping - an overview. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2011; 225(12): 1121-1135.
70. Anderson F and Pandy M. Individual muscle contributions to support in normal walking. Gait Posture 2003; 17(2): 159-169.
71. Arnold AS, Salinas S, Hakawa DJ, et al. Accuracy of muscle moment arms estimated from MRI-based musculoskeletal models of the lower extremity. Comput Aided Surg 2000; 5(2): 108-119.
72. Krokos M, Podgorelec D, Clapworthy G, et al. Patientspecific muscle models for surgical planning. In: Third International Conference on Medical Information Visualisation - Biomedical Visualisation(MediVis 2005) (ed G Clapworthy and C Moore), London, UK, 5-7 July 2005. pp. 3-8. IEEE.
73. Bendjaballah M, Shirazi-Adl A and Zukor D. Finite element analysis of human knee joint in varus-valgus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1997; 12(3): 139-148.
74. Weinans H, Sumner DR, Igloria R, et al. Sensitivity of periprosthetic stress-shielding to load and the bone density-modulus relationship in subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech 2000; 33(7): 809-817.
75. Woolf AD and Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81(9): 646-656.
76. Tremollieres FA, Pouilles JM, Drewniak N, et al. Fracture risk prediction using BMD and clinical risk factors in early postmenopausal women: sensitivity of the WHO FRAX tool. J Bone Miner Res 2010; 25(5): 1002-1009.
77. Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE, et al. Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90(5): 2787-2793.
78. Lochmuller EM, Miller P, Burklein D, et al. In situ femoral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry related to ash weight, bone size and density, and its relationship with mechanical failure loads of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11(4): 361-367.
79. Zadpoor AA and Nikooyan AA. The relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the ground reaction force: a systematic review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2011; 26(1): 23-28.
80. Bessho M, Ohnishi I, Matsuyama J, et al. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J Biomech 2007; 40(8): 1745-1753.
81. Derikx LC, Vis R, Meinders T, et al. Implementation of asymmetric yielding in case-specific finite element models improves the prediction of femoral fractures. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2011; 14(02): 183-193.
82. Dragomir-Daescu D, Op Den Buijs J, McEligot S, et al. Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip. Ann Biomed Eng 2011; 39(2): 742-755.
83. Zadpoor AA, Sinke J and Benedictus R. Formability prediction of high strength aluminum sheets. Int J Plasticity 2009; 25(12): 2269-2297.
84. Zadpoor AA, Sinke J and Benedictus R. The mechanical behavior of adhesively bonded tailor-made blanks. Int J Adhes Adhes 2009; 29(5): 558-571.
85. Doblaré M, Garcia J and Gomez M. Modelling bone tissue fracture and healing: a review. Eng Fract Mech 2004; 71(13): 1809-1840.
86. Lotz J, Cheal E and Hayes W. Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: part I - linear analysis. J Biomech Eng 1991; 113(4): 353-360.
87. Shefelbine SJ, Augat P, Claes L, et al. Trabecular bone fracture healing simulation with finite element analysis and fuzzy logic. J Biomech 2005; 38(12): 2440-2450.
88. Keyak JH, Skinner HB and Fleming JA. Effect of force direction on femoral fracture load for two types of loading conditions. J Orthop Res 2001; 19(4): 539-544.
89. Yosibash Z, Trabelsi N and Milgrom C. Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J Biomech 2007; 40(16): 3688-3699.
90. Nalla R, Kinney J and Ritchie R. Mechanistic fracture criteria for the failure of human cortical bone. Nat Mater 2003; 2(3): 164-168.
91. Garcia-Aznar J, Rueberg T and Doblare M. A bone remodelling model coupling microdamage growth and repair by 3D BMU-activity. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2005; 4(2): 147-167.
92. Campoli G, Weinans H and Zadpoor AA. Computational load estimation of the femur. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012; 10: 108-119.
93. Carter D, Fyhrie D and Whalen R. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech 1987; 20(8): 785-794.
94. Carter D, Orr T and Fyhrie D. Relationships between loading history and femoral cancellous bone architecture. J Biomech 1989; 22(3): 231-244.
95. Huiskes R, Weinans H, Grootenboer HJ, et al. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech 1987; 20(11-12): 1135-1150.
96. Bagge M. A model of bone adaptation as an optimization process. J Biomech 2000; 33(11): 1349-1357.
97. Fernandes P, Rodrigues H and Jacobs C. A model of bone adaptation using a global optimisation criterion based on the trajectorial theory of Wolff. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 1999; 2(2): 125-138.
98. Harrigan T and Hamilton J. Optimality conditions for finite element simulation of adaptive bone remodeling. Int J Solids Struct 1992; 29(23): 2897-2906.
99. Doblare M and Garcia J. Application of an anisotropic bone-remodelling model based on a damage-repair theory to the analysis of the proximal femur before and after total hip replacement. J Biomech 2001; 34(9): 1157-1170.
100. Garcia J, Martinez M and Doblare M. An anisotropic internal-external bone adaptation model based on a combination of CAO and continuum damage mechanics technologies. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2001; 4(4): 355-377.
101. Prendergast P and Taylor D. Prediction of bone adaptation using damage accumulation. J Biomech 1994; 27(8): 1067-1076.
102. Pettermann H, Reiter TJ and Rammerstorfer FG. Computational simulation of internal bone remodeling. Arch Comput Method E 1997; 4(4): 295-323.
103. Anderson AE, Ellis BJ and Weiss JA. Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2007; 10(3): 171-184.
104. Abanto-Bueno J and Lambros J. Investigation of crack growth in functionally graded materials using digital image correlation. Eng Fract Mech 2002; 69(14): 1695-1711.
105. Chu T, Ranson W and Sutton M. Applications of digital-image-correlation techniques to experimental mechanics. Exp Mech 1985; 25(3): 232-244.
106. McCormick N and Lord J. Digital image correlation. Mater Today 2010; 13(12): 52-54.
107. Roux S, Re'thoré J and Hild F. Digital image correlation and fracture: an advanced technique for estimating stress intensity factors of 2D and 3D cracks. J Phys D Appl Phys 2009; 42(21): 214004.
108. Zadpoor AA, Sinke J and Benedictus R. Experimental and numerical study of machined aluminum tailor-made blanks. J Mater Process Technol 2008; 200(1): 288-299.
109. Zadpoor AA, Sinke J and Benedictus R. Global and local mechanical properties and microstructure of friction stir welds with dissimilar materials and/or thicknesses. Metall Mater Trans A 2010; 41(13): 3365-3378.
110. Zadpoor AA, Sinke J and Benedictus R. Elastoplastic deformation of dissimilar-alloy adhesively-bonded tailor-made blanks. Mater Des 2010; 31(10): 4611-4620.
111. Liu L and Morgan EF. Accuracy and precision of digital volume correlation in quantifying displacements and strains in trabecular bone. J Biomech 2007; 40(15): 3516-3520.
112. Mann KA, Miller MA, Race A, et al. Shear fatigue micromechanics of the cement-bone interface: an in vitro study using digital image correlation techniques. J Orthop Res 2008; 27(3): 340-346.
113. Moerman KM, Holt CA, Evans SL, et al. Digital image correlation and finite element modelling as a method to determine mechanical properties of human soft tissue in vivo. J Biomech 2009; 42(8): 1150-1153.
114. Sztefek P, Vanleene M, Olsson R, et al. Using digital image correlation to determine bone surface strains during loading and after adaptation of the mouse tibia. J Biomech 2010; 43(4): 599-605.
115. Thompson M, Schell H, Lienau J, et al. Digital image correlation: a technique for determining local mechanical conditions within early bone callus. Med Eng Phys 2007; 29(7): 820-823.
116. Zhang D and Arola DD. Applications of digital image correlation to biological tissues. J Biomed Opt 2004; 9: 691-696.
117. Dickinson A, Taylor A, Ozturk H, et al. Experimental validation of a finite element model of the proximal femur using digital image correlation and a composite bone model. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133(1): 014504-1-014504-6.
118. Op Den Buijs J and Dragomir-Daescu D. Validated finite element models of the proximal femur using twodimensional projected geometry and bone density. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2011; 104(2): 168-174.
119. Perillo-Marcone A, Ryd L, Johnsson K, et al. A combined RSA and FE study of the implanted proximal tibia: correlation of the post-operative mechanical environment with implant migration. J Biomech 2004; 37(8): 1205-1213.
120. Parfitt A. Age-related structural changes in trabecular and cortical bone: cellular mechanisms and biomechanical consequences. Calcif Tissue Int 1984; 36(Suppl. 1): 123-128.