The aim of this preliminary study is to predict the biomechanical properties as strain of the femur using computed tomography medical image-based finite element analysis. Further, the finite element results were compared with the experimental results for validation purpose. The main objective of the study was to establish and validate a finite element model used to analyse biomechanical properties. For this, four sheep femur specimens were used to predict normal strain in x-x direction. Computed tomography scans were taken from each femur sample. Subsequently, an accurate image-based 3D model of each femur specimen was segmented and reconstructed with its material properties. Furthermore, the experimental test was performed at 8° bone inclination in the coronal plane and a compressive load was applied at displacement rate of 0.2 mm/s to the femur head in a vertical downward direction until fracture. Consequently, the numerical results of predicted normal strain were compared with the experimental measured normal strain. The average deviation between finite element and experimental results was found to be −11.11%–20.10% in strains. Hence, it is concluded that the results obtained using finite element analysis are in good agreement with the experimental results.
DhanwalDKDennisonEMHarveyNC, et al. Epidemiology of hip fracture: Worldwide geographic variation. Indian J Orthop2011; 45(1): 15–22.
2.
PesceVSpecialeDSammarcoG, et al. Surgical approach to bone healing in osteoporosis. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab2009; 6(2): 131–135.
3.
KenzoraJEMcCarthyRELowellJD, et al. Hip fracture mortality. Relation to age, treatment, preoperative illness, time of surgery, and complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res1984; 186: 45–56.
4.
WhiteBLFisherWDLaurinCA.Rate of mortality for elderly patients after fracture of the hip in the 1980's. J Bone J Surg Am1987; 69(9): 1335–1340.
5.
StevensJARuddRA.The impact of decreasing U.S. Hip fracture rates on future hip fracture estimates. Osteoporos Int2013; 24(10): 2725–2728.
6.
BraithwaiteRSColNFWongJB.Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc2003; 51(3): 364–370.
7.
EdwardsCCounsellABoultonC, et al. Early infection after hip fracture surgery: risk factors, costs and outcome. J Bone J Surg BR2008; 90(6): 770–777.
8.
NikkelLEFoxEJBlackKP, et al. Impact of comorbidities on hospitalization costs following hip fracture. J Bone J Surg Am2012; 94(1): 9–17.
9.
LawrenceTMWhiteCTWennR, et al. The current hospital costs of treating hip fractures. Inj2005; 36(1): 88–91.
10.
PottecherPEngelkeKDucheminL, et al. Prediction of hip failure load: in vitro study of 80 femurs using three imaging methods and finite element Models-The European Fracture Study (EFFECT). Radiol2016; 280(3): 837–847.
11.
AltaiZMontefioriEvan VeenB, et al. Femoral neck strain prediction during level walking using a combined musculoskeletal and finite element model approach. PLoS One2021; 16(2): e0245121.
12.
AshmanRBRhoJY.Elastic modulus of trabecular bone material. J Biomech1988; 21(3): 177–181.
13.
WarhatkarHChawlaAMukherjeeS, et al. Experimental study of variation between quasi-static and dynamic load deformation properties of bovine medial collateral ligaments. SAE Technical Paper, 2009.
14.
KangQAnYHFriedmanRF.Mechanical properties and bone densities of canine trabecular bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med1998; 9(5): 263–267.
15.
LuoCLiaoJZhuZ, et al. Analysis of mechanical properties and mechanical anisotropy in canine bone tissues of various ages. Biomed Res Int2019; 2019: 3503152.
16.
FengLChittendenMSchirerJ, et al. Mechanical properties of porcine femoral cortical bone measured by nanoindentation. J Biomech2012; 45(10): 1775–1782.
17.
ThombareGVShelgeSVBorateHP.Experimental and FEA analysis of goat femur with different age group. Int J Eng Res2015; 2: 2108–2115.
18.
CoryENazarianAEntezariV, et al. Compressive axial mechanical properties of rat bone as functions of bone volume fraction, apparent density and micro-ct based mineral density. J Biomech2010; 43(5): 953–960.
19.
GujarRAWarhatkarHN.Estimation of mass apparent density and Young's modulus of femoral neck-head region. J Med Eng Technol2020; 44(7): 378–388.
20.
MittraERubinCQinYX.Interrelationship of trabecular mechanical and microstructural properties in sheep trabecular bone. J Biomech2005; 38(6): 1229–1237.
21.
BrennanOKennedyODLeeTC, et al. Biomechanical properties across trabeculae from the proximal femur of normal and ovariectomised sheep. J Biomech2009; 42(4): 498–503.
22.
TaylorSDTsiridisEInghamE, et al. Comparison of human and animal femoral head chondral properties and geometries. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering Medicine2012; 226(1): 55–62.
23.
BergmannGSirakyJRohlmannA, et al. A comparison of hip joint forces in sheep, dog and man. J Biomech1984; 17(12): 907–921.
24.
GujarRAWarhatkarHN.In vitro estimation of fracture load and strain in sheep femur bone: experimental approach. Mater Today Proc2021; 44(5): 3792–3797.
25.
KeyakJHFalkinsteinY.Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Med Eng Phys2003; 25(9): 781–787.
26.
HambliRBettamerAAllaouiS.Finite element prediction of proximal femur fracture pattern based on orthotropic behaviour law coupled to quasi-brittle damage. Med Eng Phys2012; 34(2): 202–210.
27.
BettamerAHambliRAllaouiS, et al. Proximal human femur fracture assessment using isotropic and orthotropic materials: A comparative FE-study using quasi brittle damage models. In: 6th European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering (ECCOMAS 2012), Vienna, Austria, 10–14 September 2012. pp.1–9.
28.
SchileoETaddeiFMalandrinoA, et al. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech2007; 40(13): 2982–2989.
29.
LieblHGarciaEGHolznerF, et al. In-vivo assessment of femoral bone strength using finite element analysis (FEA) based on routine MDCT imaging: a preliminary study on patients with vertebral fractures. PLoS One2015; 10(2): e0116907.
30.
PainkraRSanyalSBitA.An anisotropic analysis of human femur bone with walking posture: experimental and numerical analysis. Bionanoscience2018; 8: 1054–1064.
31.
ChethanKNBhatSNZuberM, et al. Patient-specific static structural analysis of femur bone of different lengths. Open Biomed Eng J2018; 12(1): 108–114.
32.
San AntonioTCiacciaMMüller-KargerC, et al. Orientation of orthotropic material properties in a femur FE model: a method based on the principal stresses directions. Med Eng Phys2012; 34(7): 914–919.
33.
PengLBaiJZengX, et al. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(3): 227–233.
34.
YosibashZTalDTrabelsiN.Predicting the yield of the proximal femur using high-order finite-element analysis with inhomogeneous orthotropic material properties. Philos Trans Math Phys Eng Sci2010; 368(1920): 2707–2723.
35.
MiuraMNakamuraJMatsuuraY, et al. Prediction of fracture load and stiffness of the proximal femur by CT-based specimen specific finite element analysis: cadaveric validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18(1): 536.
36.
BesshoMOhnishiIMatsuyamaJ, et al. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J Biomech2007; 40(8): 1745–1753.
37.
SchileoEBalistreriLGrassiL, et al. To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?J Biomech2014; 47(14): 3531–3538.
38.
SchileoETaddeiFCristofoliniL, 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 Biomech2008; 41(2): 356–367.
39.
KumarKCNTandonTSiloriP, et al. Biomechanical stress analysis of a human femur bone using ANSYS. Mater Today Proc2015; 2(4–5): 2115–2120.
40.
KumarKCNGriyaNShaikhA, et al. Structural analysis of femur bone to predict the suitable alternative material. Mater Today Proc2020; 26(2): 364–368.
41.
ReddyMVGaneshBKCBharathiKCK, et al. Use of finite element analysis to predict type of bone fractures and fracture risks in femur due to osteoporosis. J Osteoporos Phys Activ2016; 4(3): 1–8.
42.
FonsecaEMMLimaMJBarreiraLMS.Human femur assessment using isotropic and orthotropic materials dependent of bone density. In: 3rd international conference on integrity, reliability and failure, Porto/Portugal, 20–24 July 2009, pp.1–10.
43.
NieburGLFeldsteinMJYuenJC, et al. High-resolution finite element models with tissue strength asymmetry accurately predict failure of trabecular bone. J Biomech2000; 33(12): 1575–1583.
44.
LevadnyiIAwrejcewiczJZhangY, et al. Comparison of femur strain under different loading scenarios: experimental testing. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering Medicine2021; 235(1): 17–27.
45.
Abd AzizAUGanHSNasutionAK, et al. Development and verification of three-dimensional model of femoral bone: Finite element analysis. J Phys Conf Ser2019; 1372(1): 1–6.
46.
BettamerAHambliRAllaouiS, et al. Using visual image measurements to validate a novel finite element model of crack propagation and fracture patterns of proximal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Vis2017; 5(4): 251–262.
47.
MathukumarSNagarajanVARadhakrishnanA.Analysis and validation of femur bone data using finite element method under static load condition. Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Sciences2019; 233(16): 5547–5555.
48.
GujarRWarhatkarHKaleA.Evaluation and verification of the accuracy of computed tomography image based material properties of femur using a computational model and comparison with the mathematical power-law model. Ser Biomech2021; 35(3): 33–45.
49.
BelaidDBouchouchaA.Modeling of the mechanical behavior of the human femur: stress analysis and strain. AIP Conference Proc2015; 1702(1): 1900231–4.
50.
TaddeiFSchileoEHelgasonB, et al. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. Med Eng Phys2007; 29(9): 973–979.
51.
FilardiVMilardiD.Experimental strain analysis on the entire bony leg compared with FE analysis. J Orthop2017; 14(1): 115–122.
52.
MontaniniRFilardiV.In vitro biomechanical evaluation of antegrade femoral nailing at early and late postoperative stages. Med Eng Phys2010; 32(8): 889–897.
53.
TrabelsiNYosibashZWutteC, et al. Patient-specific finite element analysis of the human femur—a double-blinded biomechanical validation. [published correction appears in J Biomech. 2012;45(4):724-5]. J Biomech2011; 44(9): 1666–1672.
54.
AlexandraTLCristianDMMihailH, et al. Experimental validation of a finite element model of an osteoporotic human femoral bone using strain gauge measurement. Appl Mech Mater2014; 658: 513–519.
55.
GujarRWarhatkarHKaleA.Study of image-based finite element model for predicting the biomechanical properties of femur bone: A review. J Inst Eng India Ser C2023; 104: 661–670.
