Traditional bone adaptation algorithms considering bone as isotropic, though explain bone density distribution but fail to account for the complex trabecular microarchitecture and mechanical significance of bone material characterization. This study enhances predictions of spatio-temporal adaptation of femoral trabecular structure by utilizing an orthotropic material model. A bone remodeling algorithm using finite element analysis was developed to precisely assess the element-wise material properties and its local orientation within the femur. The orthopedic simulations incorporated a multiple loading scheme reflecting a wide range of daily locomotor activities, thereby providing a more comprehensive evaluation of bone adaptation. The simulations could effectively capture the material directions, directional stiffnesses and density distributions, aligning closely with the actual morphology of the femur. Findings from the present simulations highlight the differential impact of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on peri-prosthetic bone remodeling. By integrating an orthotropic material model, this study offers profound insights into the bone remodeling processes post-THA. This approach, by capturing the directionality and complex mechanical behavior of bone, improves predictions of post-surgical bone growth and healing, contributing to improved outcomes in THA. The findings underscore the importance of considering multiple loading scenarios and patient-specific factors in predicting bone response and optimizing clinical outcomes.
TaichmanRS.Blood and bone: two tissues whose fates are intertwined to create the hematopoietic stem-cell niche. Blood2005; 105: 2631–2639.
2.
ClarkeB.Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2008; 3: S131–S139.
3.
SeemanE.Periosteal bone formation–a neglected determinant of bone strength. N Engl J Med2003; 349: 320–323.
4.
HaugeEMQveselDEriksenEF, et al. Cancellous bone remodeling occurs in specialized compartments lined by cells expressing osteoblastic markers. J Bone Miner Res2001; 16: 1575–1582.
5.
ParfittAM.The bone remodeling compartment: a circulatory function for bone lining cells. J Bone Miner Res2001; 16: 1583–1585.
6.
BurrDB.Targeted and nontargeted remodeling. Bone2002; 30: 2–4.
7.
VazMFCanhãoHFonsecaJE.Bone: a composite natural material. In: TěšinovaP (ed) Advances in Composite Materials. IntechOpen, 2011.
8.
WeiXCooperDML. The various meanings and uses of bone “remodeling” in biological anthropology: a review. Am J Biol Anthropol2023; 182: 318–329.
9.
GodaIGanghofferJ-FMauriceG.Combined bone internal and external remodeling based on Eshelby stress. Int J Solids Struct2016; 94–95: 138–157.
10.
FrostHM.Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec - Part A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol2003; 275: 1081–1101.
11.
BeaupreGSOrrTE.An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling—theoretical development. J Orthop1990; 8(5): 651–661.
12.
JacobsCRLevenstonMEBeaupréGS, et al. Numerical instabilities in bone remodeling simulations: the advantages of a node-based finite element approach. J Biomech1995; 28(4): 449–451, 453–459.
13.
BeaupreGSOrrTE.An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling—application: a preliminary remodeling simulation. J Orthop1990; 8(5): 662–670.
14.
HuiskesRWeinansHGrootenboerHJ, et al. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech1987; 20: 1135–1150.
15.
FernandesPGuedesJMRodriguesH.Topology optimization of three-dimensional linear elastic structures with a constraint on “perimeter”. Comput Struct1999; 73: 583–594.
16.
DoblaréMGarcíaJM.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 Biomech2001; 34: 1157–1170.
17.
TsubotaKSuzukiYYamadaT, et al. Computer simulation of trabecular remodeling in human proximal femur using large-scale voxel FE models: approach to understanding Wolff’s law. J Biomech2009; 42: 1088–1094.
18.
ShefelbineSJAugatPClaesL, et al. Trabecular bone fracture healing simulation with finite element analysis and fuzzy logic. J Biomech2005; 38: 2440–2450.
19.
YangGKabelJVan RietbergenB, et al. Anisotropic Hooke’s law for cancellous bone and wood. J Elast1998; 53: 125–146.
20.
CowinSCMehrabadiMM.Identification of the elastic symmetry of bone and other materials. J Biomech1989; 22: 503–515.
21.
CupponeMSeedhomBBBerryE, et al. The longitudinal Young’s modulus of cortical bone in the midshaft of human femur and its correlation with CT scanning data. Calcif Tissue Int2004; 74: 302–309.
22.
JacobsCRSimoJCBeaupreGS, et al. Adaptive bone remodeling incorporating simultaneous density and anisotropy considerations. J Biomech1997; 30: 603–613.
23.
MillerZFuchsMBArcanM.Trabecular bone adaptation with an orthotropic material model. J Biomech2002; 35: 247–256.
24.
GarciaJMMartínezMADoblaréM.An anisotropic internal-external bone adaptation model based on a combination of CAO and continuum damage mechanics technologies. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2001; 4: 355–377.
25.
VerhulpEvan RietbergenBHuiskesR.Comparison of micro-level and continuum-level voxel models of the proximal femur. J Biomech2006; 39: 2951–2957.
26.
van RietbergenBWeinansHHuiskesR, et al. A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. J Biomech1995; 28: 69–81.
KalmeyJKLovejoyCO.Collagen fiber orientation in the femoral necks of apes and humans: do their histological structures reflect differences in locomotor loading?Bone2002; 31: 327–332.
29.
CarterDR.Mechanical loading history and skeletal biology. J Biomech1987; 20: 1095–1109.
30.
FyhrieDPCarterDROrrTE.Relationships between femoral loading history and femoral cencellous bone architecture. J Biomech1989; 22: 231–244.
31.
GeraldesDMModeneseLPhillipsATM. Consideration of multiple load cases is critical in modelling orthotropic bone adaptation in the femur. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2016; 15: 1029–1042.
32.
TaylorMPrendergastPJ.Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities?J Biomech2015; 48: 767–778.
33.
SchileoETaddeiFMalandrinoA, et al. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech2007; 40: 2982–2989.
34.
GeraldesDMPhillipsATM. A comparative study of orthotropic and isotropic bone adaptation in the femur. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng2014; 30: 873–889.
35.
MathaiBDharaSGuptaS.Bone remodelling in implanted proximal femur using topology optimization and parameterized cellular model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2022; 125: 104903.
36.
WolffJ.The law of bone remodelling. Springer Verlag Germany, 1986.
37.
FrostHM. The biology of fracture healing. An overview for clinicians. Part I. Clin Orthop Relat Res1989; 283–293.
38.
RøhlLLarsenELindeF, et al. Tensile and compressive properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech1991; 24: 1143–1149.
39.
HayesWSnyderB. Toward a quantitative formulation of Wolff’s Law in trabecular bone. Am Soc Mech Eng Appl Mech Div AMD1981; 45: 45–68.
CarterDR.Mechanical loading histories and cortical bone remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int. Epub ahead of print 1984. DOI: 10.1007/BF02406129.
42.
TurnerCHAnneVPidapartiRM.A uniform strain criterion for trabecular bone adaptation: do continuum-level strain gradients drive adaptation?J Biomech1997; 30: 555–563.
43.
FordCMKeavenyTM.The dependence of shear failure properties of trabecular bone on apparent density and trabecular orientation. J Biomech1996; 29: 1309–1317.
44.
LempriereBM.Poisson’s ratio in orthotropic materials. AIAA J1968; 6: 2226–2227.
45.
CowinSCVan BuskirkWC.Thermodynamic restrictions on the elastic constants of bone. J Biomech1986; 19: 85–87.
46.
BazyarPBaumgartAAltenbachH, et al. An overview of selected material properties in finite element modeling of the human femur. Biomechanics2023; 3: 124–135.
47.
HazraAGhoshRChandaS, et al. In silico assessment of connective tissue formation on proximal surfaces of femoral stem with different implant materials. In: KumariPDwivedySK (eds) Recent advances in mechanics of functional materials and structures. Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 575–586.
48.
VicecontiMBellingeriLCristofoliniL, et al. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs. Med Eng Phys1998; 20: 1–10.
49.
GhoshRHazraAChandaS, et al. Computational assessment of growth of connective tissues around textured hip stem subjected to daily activities after THA. Med Biol Eng Comput2023; 61: 525–540.
50.
FraldiMEspositoLPerrellaG, et al. Topological optimization in hip prosthesis design. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2010; 9: 389–402.
51.
BergmannGGraichenFRohlmannA.Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech1993; 26: 969–990.
52.
DudaGNBrandDFreitagS, et al. Variability of femoral muscle attachments. J Biomech1996; 29: 1185–1190.
53.
WirtzDCSchiffersNForstR, et al. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech2000; 33: 1325–1330.
54.
GruenTAMcNeiceGMAmstutzHC.‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res1979; (141): 17–27.
55.
MathaiBDharaSGuptaS.Orthotropic bone remodelling around uncemented femoral implant: a comparison with isotropic formulation. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2021; 20: 1115–1134.
56.
DoblaréMGarcíaJM.Anisotropic bone remodelling model based on a continuum damage-repair theory. J Biomech2002; 35: 1–17.
57.
CaouetteCBureauMNVendittoliP-A, et al. Anisotropic bone remodeling of a biomimetic metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implant. Med Eng Phys2012; 34: 559–565.
58.
HodgskinsonRCurreyJD.The effect of variation in structure on the Young’s modulus of cancellous bone: a comparison of human and non-human material. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H: J Eng Med1990; 204: 115–121.
59.
HøibergMNielsenTLWraaeK, et al. Population-based reference values for bone mineral density in young men. Osteoporos Int2007; 18: 1507–1514.
60.
TruongL-HKuliwabaJSTsangariH, et al. Differential gene expression of bone anabolic factors and trabecular bone architectural changes in the proximal femoral shaft of primary hip osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther2006; 8: R188.
61.
AkhavanSMatthiesenMMSchulteL, et al. Clinical and histologic results related to a low-modulus composite total hip replacement stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 1308–1314.
62.
AldingerPRSaboDPritschM, et al. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA. Calcif Tissue Int2003; 73: 115–121.
63.
DanDGermannDBurkiH, et al. Bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Rheumatol Int2006; 26: 792–798.
64.
ten BroekeRHMHendrickxRPMLeffersP, et al. Randomised trial comparing bone remodelling around two uncemented stems using modified Gruen zones. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther2012; 22: 41–49.
65.
KhaohoenASornsuwanTChaijareenontP, et al. Biomaterials and clinical application of dental implants in relation to bone density-a narrative review. J Clin Med. Epub ahead of print November 2023. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216924.
66.
Stukenborg-ColsmanCMvon der Haar-TranAWindhagenH, et al. Bone remodelling around a cementless straight THA stem: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther2012; 22: 166–171.
67.
KrögerHVenesmaaPJurvelinJ, et al. Bone density at the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; (352); 66–74.
