Finite element analysis of biomechanical properties of femoral core decompression materials

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.35.024

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: With the help of computer aided analysis technique, the prediction and analysis of the surgical treatment and rehabilitation of patients with femoral necrosis, which can realize the scientific operation and recovery of the patients after surgery, is a hot research topic in the field of international related research.
OBJECTIVE: By studying the force deformation and stress distribution, fracture risk, and Interface’s biomechanical properties of the femoral head in different core decompression materials, we can provide the basis for choosing the appropriate core decompression material.
METHODS: Based on nuclear magnetic resonance imaging images of six patients with different ages, the three-dimensional model and finite element analysis model were established, and the physiological load and four different types of materials (Actifuse, BioOss, Osteoset, Prodense) were set up. Finite element analysis software AnsysWorkbench was used to analyze the performance of the femur.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The maximum stress distribution law of the femur in the work process was obtained. With the increase of the Young’s modulus of the material, the maximum normal stress of the femoral necrosis region was decreased, but the biomechanical properties of the joint surface, such as sliding distance, friction stress and pressure, are increased. On the basis of comprehensive consideration of the biomechanical properties of the fracture risk and the junction, a suitable core decompression material (Osteoset) is recommended.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

Key words: Tissue Engineering, Femur Head, Femur Head Necrosis, Biomechanics

CLC Number:

R318

Biao Wu . Finite element analysis of biomechanical properties of femoral core decompression materials[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(35): 5705-5711.

Figures/Tables 14

References

[1] Lutz A, Nackenhorst U, Numerical investigations on the osseointegration of uncemented endoprostheses based on bio-active interface theory, Comput Mech. 2012;50: 367-381.
[2] Lutz A, Nackenhorst U, Lewinski G, et al, Numerical studies on alternative therapies for femoral head necrosis, Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2011;10:627-640.
[3] Zhao DW, Cui DP, Tian FD, et al. Treatment of early stage osteoneccosis of the femoral head with autilogous implantation of bone marrow-derived and cultured mesenchymal stem cells. Bone. 2012;50:325-330.
[4] 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;41:356-367.
[5] Schileo E, Cristofolini L, Grassi L, et al. To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations. J Biomech. 2014; 47:3531-3538.
[6] Schileo E, Dall’Ara E, Taddei F, et al, An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech. 2008; 41:2483-2491.
[7] Floerkemeier T, Lutz A, Nackenhorst U, et al. Core decompression and osteonecrosis intervention rod in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: clinical outcome and ?nite element analysis. Int Orthop. 2011;35:1461-1466.
[8] Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006;39:2457-2467.
[9] Taddei F, Pani M, Zovatto L, et al. A new meshless approach for subject-specific strain predictionin long bones: evaluation of accuracy. Clin Biomech. 2008;23:1192-1199.
[10] Calori GM, Mazza E, Colombo M, et al. Treatment of AVN using the induction chamber technique and a biological-based approach: indications and clinical results. Injury. 2014;45:369-373.
[11] Cheng HY, Chu KT, Shen FC, et al. Stress effect on bone remodeling and osseointegration on denta implant with novel nano/microporous surface functionalization. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2013;101A:1158-1164.
[12] Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, et al. Bone stress and interfacial sliding analysis of implant designs on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a non-linear finite element study. J Dent. 2008;36:409-417.
[13] Yang J, Xiang HJ. A three-dimensional finite element study on the biomechanical behavior of an FGBM dental implant in surrounding bone. J Biomech. 2007;40:2377-2385.
[14] Joshua A, Neil M, Boyd SK. Bone strength at the distal radius can be estimated from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the finite element method. Bone. 2008;42:1203-1213.
[15] Cristofolini L, Juszczyk M, Martelli S, et al. In vitro replication of spontaneous fractures of the proximal human femur. J Biomech. 2007;40:2837-2845.
[16] Juszczyk MM, Cristofolini L, Salv M. Accurate in vitro identification of fracture onset in bones: Failure mechanism of the proximal human femur. J Biomech. 2013;46:158-164.
[17] Fanuscu M, Hung V, Poncelet VB. Implant biomechanics in grafted sinus: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30:59-68.
[18] Michael J, Jack G, Kelly S, et al. Approach to the patient evaluation using static and dynamic hip pathomechanics. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2012;20:260-272.
[19] Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G. Core decompression of the femoral head forosteonecrosis using percutaneous multiple small-diameter drilling. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:131-138.
[20] Nguyen H, Dieter H, Gross T, et al. Micro-finite element (μFE) modeling of the siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) third proximal phalanx: the functional role of curvature and the flexor sheath ridge. J Hum Evol.2014;67:60-75.
[21] Wazen RM, Currey JA, Guo HQ. Micromotion-induced strain fields influence early stages of repair at bone-implant interfaces. Acta Biomaterialia. 2013;9:6663-6674.
[22] Shuler MS, Rooks MD, Roberson JR. Porous tantalum implant in early osteonecrosis of the hip: preliminary report on operative, survival, and outcomes results. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:26-31.
[23] Shah SH, Kapoor CS, Jhaveri MR, et al. Analysis of outcome of avascular necrosis of femoral head treated by core decompression and bone grafting. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2015;6:160-166.
[24] Steinberg M. The advantages of core decompression for treating avascular necrosis. UPOJ. 2000;13:84-88.
[25] Stronach BM, Duke JN, Rozensweig SD, et al. Subtrochanteric fracture after core decompression and placement of a tantalum strut for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(7):1168.e5-e7.
[26] Sumner DR, Turner TM, Igloria R, et al. Functional adaptation and ingrowth of bone vary as a function of hip implant stiffness. J Biomech. 1998;31:909-917.
[27] Floerkemeier T, Lutz A, Nackenhorst U, et al. Core decompression and osteonecrosis intervention rod in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: clinical outcome and finite element analysis. Int Orthop. 2011;35:1461-1466.
[28] Veillette CJ, Mehdian H, Schemitsch EH, et al. Survivorship analysis and radiographic outcome following tantalum rod insertion for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:48-55.
[29] Shim VB, Fernandez JW, Gamage PB, et al. Subject-specific finite element analysis to characterize the influence of geometry and material properties in achilles tendon rupture. J Biomech. 2014;47:3598-3604.
[30] Simon U, Augat P, Ignatius A, et al. Influence of the stiffness of bone defect implants on the mechanical conditions at the interface-a finite element analysis with contact. J Biomech. 2003;36:1079-1086.