Strain distribution within the human femur due to physiological and simplified loading: Finite element analysis using the muscle standardized femur model
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2003
Strain distribution within the human femur due to physiological and simplified loading: Finite element analysis using the muscle standardized femur model
The aim of the current work was to study the effect of simplified loading on strain distribution within the intact femur using the Muscle Standardized Femur finite element model and to investigate whether the interaction between the intact human femur and the muscles which are attached to the bone surface could accurately be represented by concentrated forces, applied through the centroids of their attachment areas. An instant at 10 per cent of the gait cycle during level walking was selected as the reference physiological load case; nine load cases were analysed. Comparison of the calculated results for the physiological load case with muscle forces uniformly distributed over their attachment areas showed good agreement with in vivo measurements of strain values and femoral head displacement in humans. Simplified load cases generated unrealistic displacement results and high strain magnitudes, exceeding the physiological range. It was found that when muscles with large attachment areas are included in the model and the muscle forces are simplified, stress and strain distributions will be affected not only on the external bone surface in the vicinity of the load application node, but also on the internal surface of the cortical bone. However, applying muscle forces as concentrated loads at the centroids of the attachment areas can serve as first indicators of the physiological stress and strain levels, if results from nodes and elements in the vicinity of the load application nodes are discarded. Omitting muscle forces or fixing the femur in mid-shaft leads to large unphysiological strain values.
LingR. S. M.O'ConnorJ. J.LuT. W.LeeA. J. C.Muscular activity and the biomechanics of the hip. Hip Int., 1996, 6, 91–105.
2.
SimoesJ. A.VazM. A.BlatcherS.TaylorM.Influence of head constraint and muscle forces on the strain distribution within the intact femur. Med. Engng Physics, 2000, 22, 453–459.
3.
LuT.-W.O'ConnorJ. J.TaylorS. J.G.WalkerP. S.Validation of a lower limb model with in vivo femoral forces telemetered from two subjects. J. Biomechanics, 1998, 31, 63–69.
4.
TaylorM. E.TannerK. E.FreemanM. A.R.YettramA. L.Stress and strain distribution within the intact femur: Compression or bending?Med. Engng Physics, 1996, 18, 122–131.
5.
DudaG. N.Influence of muscle forces on the internalloads in the femur during gait. PhD thesis, Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg and Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 1996.
6.
DudaG. N.SchneiderE.ChaoE. Y. S.Internal forces and moments in the femur during walking. J. Biomechanics, 1997, 30, 933–941.
7.
DudaG. N.HellerM.AlbingerJ.SchulzO.SchneiderE.ClaesL.Influence of muscles on femoral strain distribution. J. Biomechanics, 1998, 31, 841–846.
8.
CristofoliniL.VicecontiM.ToniA.GiuntiA.Influence of thigh muscles on the axial strains in a proximal femur during early stance in gait. J. Biomechanics, 1995, 28, 617–624.
9.
StolkJ.VerdonschotN.HuiskesR.Hip-joint and abductor-muscleforces adequately represent in vivo loading of cemented hip reconstruction. J. Biomechanics, 2001, 34, 917–926.
10.
VicecontiM.AnsaloniM.BaleaniM.ToniA.The Muscle Standardised Femur. J. Biomechanics, 2003, 36, 145–146.
11.
VicecontiM.AnsaloniM.BaleaniM.ToniA.The Muscle Standardized Femur: A step forward in the replication of numerical studies in biomechanics. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2003, 217 (H2), 105–110.
12.
VicecontiM.CasaliM.MassariB.CristofoliniL.BassiniS.ToniA.Standardized femur program proposal for a reference geometry to be used for the creation of finite element models of the femur. J. Biomechanics, 1996, 29, 1241.
13.
PolgarK.GillH. S.VicecontiM.MurrayD. W.O'ConnorJ. J.Development and numerical validation of finite element model of the muscle standardized femur. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2003, 217 (H3), 165–172 (This issue).
14.
PolgarK.VicecontiM.O'ConnorJ. J.Comparison between automatically generated linear and parabolic tetra-hedra when used to mesh a human femur. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2001, 215 (H1), 85–94.
15.
LengsfeldM.KaminskyJ.MerzB.FrankeR. P.Sensitivity of femoral strain pattern analyses to resultant and muscle forces at the hip joint. Med. Engng Physics, 1996, 18, 70–78.
16.
BrandR. A.PedersenD. R.FriederichJ. A.The sensitivity of muscle force predictions to changes in physiological cross-sectional area. J. Biomechanics, 1986, 19, 589–596.
17.
CristofoliniL.A critical analysis of stress shielding evaluation of hip prostheses. Critical Revs in Biomed. Engng, 1997, 25, 409–483.
BenedettiM. G.CataniF.LeardiniA.PignottiE.GianniniS.Data management in gait analysis for clinical applications. Clin. Biomech., 1998, 13, 204–215.
22.
BrandR. A.PedersenD. R.DavyD. T.KotzarG. M.HeipleK. G.GoldbergV. M.Comparison of hip force calculations and measurements in the same patient. J. Arthro., 1994, 9, 45–51.
23.
KotzarG. M.DavyD. T.GoldbergV. M.HeipleK. G.BerillaJ.HeipleK. G.Jr.BrownR. H.BursteinA. H.Telemeterized in vivo hip joint force data: A report on two patients after total hip surgery. J. Orthop. Res., 1991, 9, 621–633.
24.
AamodtA.Lund-LarsenJ.EineJ.AndersenE.BenumP.Schnell HusbyO.In vivo measurements show tensile axial strain in the proximal lateral aspect of the human femur. J. Orthop. Res., 1997, 15, 927–931.
25.
LanyonL. E.HampsonW. G. J.GoodshipA. E.ShahJ. S.Bone deformation recorded in vivo from strain gauges attached to the human tibial shaft. Acta Orthopaedica Scand., 1975, 46, 256–268.
26.
BurrD. B.MilgromC.FyhrieD.ForwoodM.NyskaM.FinestoneA.HoshawS.SaiagE.SimkinA.In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone, 1996, 18, 405–410.
27.
KenediR. M.Human body biomechanics. In A Textbook of Biomedical Engineering (Ed. KenediR. M.), 1980, pp. 1–73 (Blackie & Son Limited, Glasgow).
28.
CarterD. R.CaylerW. E.SpenglerD. M.FrenkleV. H.Fatigue behaviour of adult cortical bone: The influence of mean strain and strain range. Acta Orthopaedica Scand., 1981, 52, 431–490.
29.
NunamakerD. M.ButterweckD. M.ProvostM. T.Fatigue fractures in thoroughbred racehorses: Relationships with age, peak bone strain, and training. J. Orthop. Res., 1990, 8, 604–611.
30.
BeerF. P.JohnstonE. R.Mechanics of Materials, 1981 (McGraw-Hill, New York).
31.
MannK. A.AyersD. C.WernerF. W.NicolettaR. J.FortinoM. D.Tensile strength of the cement-bone interface depends on the amount of bone interdigitated with PMMA cement. J. Biomechanics, 1997, 30, 339–346.
32.
MannK. A.WernerF. W.AyersD. C.Mechanical strength of the cement-bone interface is greater in shear than in tension. J. Biomechanics, 1999, 32, 1251–1254.
33.
KeyakJ. H.RossiS. A.Prediction of femoral fracture load using finite element models: An examination of stress-and strain-based failure theories. J. Biomechanics, 2000, 33, 209–214.
34.
TestiD.VicecontiM.BaruffaldiF.CappelloA.Risk of fracture in elderly patients: A new predictive index based on bone mineral density and finite element analysis. Comp. Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 1999, 60, 23–33.
35.
CourtneyA. C.HayesW. C.GibsonL. J.Age-related differences in post-yield damage in human cortical bone. Experiment and model. J. Biomechanics, 1996, 29, 1463–1471.
36.
WeinansH.HuiskesR.GrootenboerH. J.The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J. Biomechanics, 1992, 25, 1425–1441.
37.
HarriganT. P.HamiltonJ. J.ReubenJ. D.ToniA.VicecontiM.Bone remodelling adjacent to intramed-ullary stems: An optimal structures approach. Biomaterials, 1996, 17, 223–232.
38.
TurnerC. H.AnneV.PidapartiR. M. V.A uniform strain criterion for trabecular bone adaptation: Do continuum-level strain gradients drive adaptation?J. Biomechanics, 1997, 30, 555–563.
