Excellence in Research and Innovation for Humanity

International Science Index


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
12603
Finite Element Prediction and Experimental Verification of the Failure Pattern of Proximal Femur using Quantitative Computed Tomography Images
Abstract:
This paper presents a novel method for prediction of the mechanical behavior of proximal femur using the general framework of the quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element Analysis (FEA). A systematic imaging and modeling procedure was developed for reliable correspondence between the QCT-based FEA and the in-vitro mechanical testing. A speciallydesigned holding frame was used to define and maintain a unique geometrical reference system during the analysis and testing. The QCT images were directly converted into voxel-based 3D finite element models for linear and nonlinear analyses. The equivalent plastic strain and the strain energy density measures were used to identify the critical elements and predict the failure patterns. The samples were destructively tested using a specially-designed gripping fixture (with five degrees of freedom) mounted within a universal mechanical testing machine. Very good agreements were found between the experimental and the predicted failure patterns and the associated load levels.
Digital Article Identifier (DAI):

References:

[1] P. Sambrook, C. Cooper, "Osteoporosis," Lancet, vol. 367, no. 9527, pp. 2010-2018, 2006.
[2] M.A.K. Liebschner, D.L. Kopperdahl, W.S. Rosenberg, T.M. Keaveny, "Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine," Spine, vol. 28, pp. 559-565, 2003.
[3] R.P. Crawford, C.E. Cann, T.M. Keaveny, "Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography," Bone, vol. 33, pp. 744-750, 2003.
[4] J.M. Buckley, K. Loo, J. Motherway, "Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength," Bone, vol. 40, pp. 767-774, 2007.
[5] M. Mirzaei, A. Zeinali, A. Razmjoo, M. Nazemi, "On prediction of the strength levels and failure patterns of human vertebrae using quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element method," J Biomech, vol. 42, pp. 1584-1591, 2009.
[6] J.H. Keyak, S.A. Rossi, K.A. Jones, H.B. Skinner, "Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling," J Biomech, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 125-133, 1998.
[7] J.H. Keyak, H.B. Skinner, J.A. Fleming, "Effect of force direction on femoral fracture load for two types of loading conditions," J Orthop Res, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 539-544, 2001.
[8] J.H. Keyak, T.S. Kaneko, J. Tehranzadeh, H.B. Skinner, "Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models," Clin Orthop Relat Res, vol. 437, pp. 219-228, 2005.
[9] J.H. Keyak et al., "Male-female differences in the association between incident hip fracture and proximal femoral strength: A finite element analysis study," Bone, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1239-1245, 2011.
[10] D.D. Cody, G.J. Gross, F.J. Hou, H.J. Spencer, S.A. Goldstein, D.P. Fyhrie, "Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA," J Biomech, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1013-1020, 1999.
[11] M. Bessho, I. Ohnishi, J. Matsuyama, T. Matsumoto, K. Imai, K. Nakamura, "Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method," J Biomech, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1745- 1753, 2007.
[12] M. Bessho, I. Ohnishi, T. Matsumoto, S. Ohashi, J. Matsuyama, K. Tobita, M. Kaneko, K. Nakamura, "Prediction of proximal femur strength using a CT-based nonlinear finite element method: Differences in predicted fracture load and site with changing load and boundary conditions," Bone, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 226-231, 2009.
[13] Z. Yosibash, N. Trabelsi, C. Milgrom, "Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite elements analysis validated by experimental observations," J Biomech, vol. 40, pp. 3688-3699, 2007.
[14] E. Schileo, F. Taddei, L. Cristofolini, M. Viceconti, "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, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 356-367, 2008.
[15] N. Trabelsi, Z. Yosibash, C. Milgrom, "Validation of subject-specific automated p-FE analysis of the proximal femur," J Biomech, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 234-241, 2009.
[16] N. Trabelsi, Z. Yosibash, C. Wutte, P. Augat, S. Eberle, "Patientspecific finite element analysis of the human femur--A double-blinded biomechanical validation," J Biomech, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1666-21672, 2011.
[17] D. Dragomir-Daescu et al., "Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip," Ann Biomed Eng, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 742-2755, 2011.
[18] C.M. Les, J.H. Keyak, S.M. Stover, K.T. Taylor, A.J. Kaneps, "Estimation of material properties in the equine metacarpus with use of quantitative computed tomography," J Orthop Rest, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 822-833, 1994.
[19] J.H. Keyak, Y. Falkinstein, "Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scanbased finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load," Med Eng Phys, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 781-787, 2003.
[20] J.H. Keyak, "Relationships between femoral fracture loads for two load configurations," J Biomech, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 499-502, 2000.
[21] L. Cristofolini, G. Conti, M. Juszczyk, S. Cremonini, S.V. Sint Jan, M. Viceconti, "Structural behaviour and strain distribution of the long bones of the human lower limbs," J Biomech, vol. 43, pp. 826-835, 2010.
[22] J.S. Stolken, J.H. Kinney, "On the importance of geometric nonlinearity in finite element simulations of trabecular bone failure," Bone, vol. 33, pp. 496-504, 2003.
Vol:12 No:08 2018Vol:12 No:07 2018Vol:12 No:06 2018Vol:12 No:05 2018Vol:12 No:04 2018Vol:12 No:03 2018Vol:12 No:02 2018Vol:12 No:01 2018
Vol:11 No:12 2017Vol:11 No:11 2017Vol:11 No:10 2017Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007