A combined musculoskeletal multibody dynamics and finite element modeling was performed to investigate the effects of design parameters on the fracture-healing efficiency and the mechanical property of a patient-specific anatomically adjusted femoral locking plate. Specifically, the screw type, the thickness and material of the locking plate, the gap between two femoral fragments (fracture gap) and the distance between bone and plate (interface gap) were evaluated during a human walking. We found that the patient-specific locking plate possessed greater mechanical strength and more efficient fracture healing than the corresponding traditional plate. An optimal patient-specific femoral locking plate would consist of bicortical locking screws, Ti-6Al-4V material and 4.75-mm plate thickness with a fracture gap of 2 mm and an interface gap of 1 mm. The developed patient-specific femoral locking plate based on the patient-specific musculoskeletal mechanical environment was more beneficial to fracture rehabilitation and healing. The patient-specific design method provides an effective research platform for designing and optimizing the patient-specific femoral locking plate under realistic in vivo walking conditions, which can be extended to the design of other implants as well as to other physiological loading conditions related to various daily activities.
WagnerM. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury2003; 34: 721–728.
2.
MillerDLGoswamiT. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech2007; 22: 1049–1062.
3.
PerrenSM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br2002; 84: 1093–1110.
4.
HarryssonOLHosniYANayfehJF. Custom-designed orthopedic implants evaluated using finite element analysis of patient-specific computed tomography data: femoral-component case study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2007; 8: 91.
5.
SingareSDichenLBinghengLet al. Design and fabrication of custom mandible titanium tray based on rapid prototyping. Med Eng Phys2004; 26: 671–676.
6.
CronskärMBäckströmMRännarL. Production of customized hip stem prostheses—a comparison between conventional machining and electron beam melting (EBM). Rapid Prototyping J2013; 19: 363–413.
7.
CronskärMRännarLEBäckströmM. Implementation of digital design and solid free-form fabrication for customization of implants in trauma orthopaedics. J Med Biol Eng2012; 32: 399–401.
8.
PerrenSM. Physical and biological aspects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res1979; 68: 285–288.
9.
HeJLiDLuBet al. Custom fabrication of composite tibial hemi-knee joint combining CAD/CAE/CAM techniques. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2006; 220: 823–830.
10.
LiuYLiDLuBet al. The customized mandible substitute based on rapid prototyping. Rapid Prototyping J2003; 9: 167–174.
11.
PatelPSShepherdDEHukinsDW. The effect of screw insertion angle and thread type on the pullout strength of bone screws in normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models. Med Eng Phys2010; 32: 822–828.
12.
SchatzkerJTileM. The rationale of operative fracture care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
13.
LinYWangD. Reverse engineering in CAD model reconstruction of customized artificial joint. Med Eng Phys2005; 27: 189–193.
14.
FouadH. Effects of the bone-plate material and the presence of a gap between the fractured bone and plate on the predicted stresses at the fractured bone. Med Eng Phys2010; 32: 783–789.
15.
SchwartzBEAmiroucheFMLChoiKWet al. A finite element model of locked plating in femoral shaft fractures. Open J Orthop2014; 4: 104–112.
16.
HammanDLindseyDDragooJ. Biomechanical analysis of bicortical versus unicortical locked plating of mid-clavicular fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2011; 131: 773–778.
17.
DoughertyPJKimDMeisterlingSet al. Biomechanical comparison of bicortical versus unicortical screw placement of proximal tibia locking plates: a cadaveric model. J Orthop Trauma2008; 22: 399–403.
18.
AhmadMNandaRBajwaASet al. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?Injury2007; 38: 358–364.
19.
GrujicicMArakereGXieXet al. Design-optimization and material selection for a femoral-fracture fixation-plate implant. Mater Design2010; 31: 3463–3473.
20.
PendergastMRusoviciR. A finite element parametric study of clavicle fixation plates. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng2015; 31: 6.
21.
GardnerTNStollTMarksLet al. The influence of mechanical stimulus on the pattern of tissue differentiation in a long bone fracture—an FEM study. J Biomech2000; 33: 415–425.
22.
DuncanRLTurnerCH. Mechanotransduction and the functional response of bone to mechanical strain. Calcif Tissue Int1995; 57: 344–358.
23.
WangXNymanJDongXet al. Fundamental biomechanics in bone tissue engineering. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2010.
24.
ErdemirAGuessTMHalloranJet al. Considerations for reporting finite element analysis studies in biomechanics. J Biomech2012; 45: 625–633.
25.
García-AznarJMKuiperJHGómez-BenitoMJet al. Computational simulation of fracture healing: influence of interfragmentary movement on the callus growth. J Biomech2007; 40: 1467–1476.
26.
ClaesLEHeigeleCA. Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech1999; 32: 255–266.
27.
KimHJKimSHChangSH. Finite element analysis using interfragmentary strain theory for the fracture healing process to which composite bone plates are applied. Compos Struct2011; 93: 2953–2962.
28.
BehrensBANolteIWefstaedtPet al. Numerical investigations on the strain-adaptive bone remodelling in the periprosthetic femur: influence of the boundary conditions. Biomed Eng Online2009; 8: 7.
29.
DudaGNHellerMAlbingerJet al. Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech1998; 31: 841–846.
30.
MeenaVKKumarMPundirAet al. Musculoskeletal-based finite element analysis of femur after total hip replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2016; 230: 553–560.
31.
WagnerDWDivringiKOzcanCet al. Combined musculoskeletal dynamics/structural finite element analysis of femur physiological loads during walking. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct2010; 6: 417–437.
ChenZZhangXArdestaniMMet al. Prediction of in vivo joint mechanics of an artificial knee implant using rigid multi-body dynamics with elastic contacts. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2014; 228: 564–575.
34.
ChenZZhangXWangLet al. Evaluation of a subject-specific musculoskeletal modelling framework for load prediction in total knee arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys2016; 38: 708–716.
35.
FreglyBJBesierTFLloydDGet al. Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J Orthop Res2012; 30: 503–513.
36.
FrankenfieldDCRoweWACooneyRNet al. Limits of body mass index to detect obesity and predict body composition. Nutrition2001; 17: 26–30.
37.
RasmussenJDamsgaardMVoigtM. Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion—a comparative numerical study. J Biomech2001; 34: 409–415.
38.
KellerTS. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech1994; 27: 1159–1168.
39.
MartiAFankhauserCFrenkAet al. Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system for the internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma2001; 15: 482–487.
40.
BaumTCarballido-GamioJHuberMBet al. Automated 3D trabecular bone structure analysis of the proximal femur—prediction of biomechanical strength by CT and DXA. Osteoporos Int2010; 21: 1553–1564.
41.
WebberTPatelSPPensakMet al. Correlation between distal radial cortical thickness and bone mineral density. J Hand Surg Am2015; 40: 493–499.
42.
WirtzDCSchiffersNPandorfTet al. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech2000; 33: 1325–1330.
43.
SenalpAZKayabasiOKurtaranH. Static, dynamic and fatigue behavior of newly designed stem shapes for hip prosthesis using finite element analysis. Mater Design2007; 28: 1577–1583.
44.
DamsgaardMRasmussenJChristensenSTet al. Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the anybody modeling system. Simul Model Pract Th2006; 14: 1100–1111.
45.
BartelDLDavyDTKeavenyTM. Orthopaedic biomechanics mechanics and design in musculoskeletal systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 2006, p.75.
46.
MeijerKVan GeenhuizenJALiebrandHTet al. The functional consequences of muscle adaptation: a simulation in AnyBody. In: Proceedings of the international congress on computational bioengineering, Zaragoza, Spain, 24–26 September 2003, Manuel Doblaré.
47.
ThompsonMVoigtMDe MarkZ. Evaluation of lower extremity musculo-skeletal model using sit-to-stand movement. In: Proceedings of the 19th congress of the international society of biomechanics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 6–11 July 2003, Elsevier.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
