Biomechanical investigations are increasingly using commercially available synthetic femurs as surrogates for human cadaveric femurs. However, the rate of force application in testing these artificial femurs appears to be chosen arbitrarily without much consideration to their visco-elastic time-dependent nature. The aim of this study, therefore, was to examine the effect of loading rate on the mechanical behaviour of synthetic femurs. Ten left, medium, fourth-generation composite femurs (Model 3403, Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA, USA) were fixed distally into cement-filled steel cubic chambers for mounting into a mechanical tester. In randomized order, each of the ten femurs was loaded at rates of 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 mm/min to obtain axial, lateral, and torsional stiffness. Axial stiffness showed an aggregate average value of 1742.7 ± 174.7 N/mm with a high linear correlation with loading rate (R2 = 0.80). Lateral stiffness yielded an aggregate average value of 56.9 ± 10.2 N/mm and was linearly correlated with loading rate (R2 = 0.85). Torsional stiffness demonstrated an aggregate average value of 176.9 ± 14.5 N/mm with a strong linear correlation with loading rate (R2 = 0.59). Despite the high correlations between stiffness and speed, practically this resulted in an overall average difference between the lowest and highest stiffness of only 4 per cent. Moreover, no statistical comparisons between loading rates for axial, lateral, or torsional test modes showed differences (p ≤ 0.843). Future biomechanical investigators utilizing these synthetic femurs need not be concerned with loading rate effects over the range tested presently. This is the first study in the literature to perform such an assessment.
US Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2007, Washington, DC, USA available from www.bts.gov.
2.
FriggR.‘Locking compression plate (LCP). An osteosynthesis plate based on the dynamic compression plate and the point contact fixator (PC-Fix).’Injury32 (Suppl. 2) (2001): 63–66
3.
FulkersonE.KovalK.PrestonC. F.IesakaK.KummerF. J.EgolK. A.‘Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: A biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates.’J. Orthop. Trauma20 (2006): 89–93
4.
KuzykP.LoboJ.WhelanD.ZderoR.McKeeM. D.SchemitschE. H.‘Biomechanical evaluation of extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation for reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures.’J. Orthop. Trauma23 (1) (2009): 31–38
5.
McConnellA.ZderoR.SyedK.PeskunC.SchemitschE. H.‘The biomechanics of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures: A comparison of 5 fracture fixation techniques.’J. Orthop. Trauma22 (8) (2008): 517–524
6.
DavisE. T.OlsenM.ZderoR.PapiniM.WaddellJ. P.SchemitschE. H.‘A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng131 (4) (2009): 041002–1-8.
7.
DavisE. T.OlsenM.ZderoR.WaddellJ. P.SchemitschE. H.‘Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: The effect of alignment of the femoral component.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.90 (11) (2008): 1522–1527
8.
CheungG.ZalzalP.BhandariM.SpeltJ. K.PapiniM.‘Finite element analysis of a femoral retrograde intramedullary nail subject to gait loading.’Med. Engng Phys.26 (2004): 93–108
9.
TalbotM.ZderoR.GarneauD.ColeP. A.SchemitschE. H.‘Fixation of long bone segmental defects: A biomechanical study.’Injury39 (2) (2008): 181–186
BougheraraH.ZderoR.MiricM.ShahS.HardistyM.ZalzalP.SchemitschE. H.‘The biomechanics of the T2 femoral nailing system: A comparison of synthetic femurs with finite element analysis.’Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine223 (H3) (2009): 303–314 DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM501.
12.
CusickR. P.LucasG. L.McQueenD. A.GraberC. D.‘construct stiffness of different fixation methods for supracondylar femoral fractures above total knee prostheses.’Am. J. Orthop.29 (9) (2000): 695–699
13.
DennisM. G.SimonJ. A.KummerF. J.KovalK. J.Di CesareP. E.‘Fixation of periprosthetic femoral fracture shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: A biomechanical study of 5 techniques.’J. Arthroplasty15 (4) (2000): 523–528
14.
PeindlR. D.ZuraR. D.VincentA.ColeyE. R.BosseM. J.SimsS. H.‘Unstable proximal extraarticular tibia fractures: A biomechanical evaluation of four methods of fixation.’J. Orthop. Trauma18 (8) (2004): 540–545
15.
StevensS. S.IrishA. J.VachtsevanosJ. G.CsongradiJ.BeaupreG. S.‘A biomechanical study of three wiring techniques for cerclage-plating.’J. Orthop. Trauma9 (5) (1995): 381–387
16.
ZderoR.WalkerR.WaddellJ. P.SchemitschE. H.‘Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.90 (5) (2008): 1068–1077
17.
CristofoliniL.VicecontiM.‘Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models.’J. Biomech.33 (3) (2000): 279–288
18.
CristofoliniL.VicecontiM.CappelloA.ToniA.‘Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models.’J. Biomech.29 (4) (1996): 525–535
19.
HeinerA. D.BrownT. D.‘Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias.’J. Biomech.34 (2001): 773–781
20.
HeinerA. D.BrownT. D.‘Structural properties of an improved redesign of composite replicate femurs and tibias.’Trans. 29th Soc. Biomater.26 (2003): 702
21.
PapiniM.ZderoR.SchemitschE. H.ZalzalP.‘The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: Comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng129 (1) (2007): 12–19
22.
McElhaneyJ. H.‘Dynamic response of bone and muscle tissue.’J. Appl. Physiol.21 (1966): 1231–1236
23.
NataliA. N.MeroiE. A.‘A review of the biomechanical properties of bone as a material.’J. Biomed. Engng11 (1989): 266–276
24.
HansenU.ZiouposP.SimpsonR.CurreyJ. D.HyndD.‘The effect of strain rate on the mechanical properties of human cortical bone.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng130 (February) (2008): 011011–1-8.
25.
MosleyJ. R.LanyonL. E.‘Strain rate as a controlling influence on adaptive modeling in response to dynamic loading of the ulna in growing male rats.’Bone23 (4) (1998): 313–318
26.
JudexS.ZernickeR. F.‘Does the mechanical milieu associated with high-speed running lead to adaptive changes in diaphyseal growing bone.’Bone26 (2) (2000): 153–159
27.
O'ConnorJ. A.LanyonL. E.‘The influence of strain rate on adaptive bone remodeling.’J. Biomech.15 (10) (1982): 767–781
28.
TurnerC. H.OwanI.TakanoY.‘Mechanotransduction in bone: Role of strain rate.’Am. J. Physiol.269 (1995): E438-E442.
29.
ZderoR.ShahS.MosliM.BougheraraH.SchemitschE. H.‘The effect of the screw pull-out rate on cortical screw purchase in unreamed and reamed synthetic long bones.’Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine224 (H3) (2009): 503–513 DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM675.
30.
ZderoR.SchemitschE. H.‘The effect of screw pullout rate on screw purchase in synthetic cancellous bone.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng131 (2) (2009): 024501–1-5.
31.
DennisM. G.SimonJ. A.KummerF. J.KovalK. J.Di CesareP. E.‘Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures: A biomechanical comparison of two techniques.’J. Orthop. Trauma15 (3) (2001): 177–180
32.
Standard specification and test methods for metallic medical bone screws (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM InternationalWest Conshohocken, PA, USA))
33.
Standard specification for rigid polyurethane foam for use as a standard material for testing orthopaedic devices and instruments (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM InternationalWest Conshohocken, PA, USA))
34.
Shear and three-point bending test of animal bone (American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC)
35.
RubinC. T.LanyonL. E.‘Limb mechanics as a function of speed and gait: A study of the functional strains in the radius and tibia of horse and dog.’J. Expl Biol.101 (1982): 187–211
36.
LanyonL. E.HampsonW. G. J.GoodshipA. E.ShahJ. S.‘Bone deformation recorded in vivo from strain gauges attached to the tibial shaft.’Acta Orthop. Scand.46 (1975): 256–268
37.
BurrD. B.MilgromC.FyhrieD.ForwoodM.NyskaM.FinestoneA.HoshawS.SaiagE.SimkinA.‘In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity.’Bone (NY)18 (1996): 405–410
38.
HyndD.WillismC.RobertsA.LowneR.HopcroftR.ManningP.WallaceW. A.‘The development of an injury criteria for axial loading to the THOR-LX based on PMHS testing.’ In Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on The enhanced safety of vehicles (ESV), Nagoya, Japan, 2003, paper no. 078.
39.
ZderoR.ElfallahK.OlsenM.SchemitschE. H.‘Cortical screw purchase in synthetic and human femurs.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng131 (9) (2009): 094503–1-7.
40.
ZderoR.OlsenM.BougheraraH.SchemitschE. H.‘Cancellous bone screw purchase: A comparison of synthetic femurs, human femurs, and finite element analysis.’Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine222 (H8) (2008): 1175–1183 DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM409.
41.
ZderoR.RoseS.SchemitschE. H.PapiniM.‘Cortical screw pullout strength and effective shear stress in synthetic third generation composite femurs.’Trans. ASME, J. Biomech. Engng129 (2) (2007): 289–293
