Dynamic finite element analysis of implants for femoral neck fractures simulating walking

Noda, Masaharu; Nakamura, Yukiko; Adachi, K.; Saegusa, Yasuhiro; Takahashi, M

doi:10.1177/2309499018777899

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is extremely difficult to completely simulate the load of the femur in a physiological state. And there is still controversy about the loading of the hip joint, such as the number of muscle loads and the direction of the load in different states 34 . Therefore, most literature simplifies the hip joint force before proceeding to the next analysis and research, and we need further biomechanics research and clinical trials to draw more convincing conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Analysis of Proximal Femur Bionic Nail (PFBN) Compared with Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation and InterTan in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Wang

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the biomechanical properties of proximal femur bionic nail (PFBN), proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and InterTan in the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures AO/OTA 31-A1.3 by finite element analysis. Methods:We used Mimics, Unigraphics and other software to establish normal femur and AO/OTA 31-A1.3 fracture models, and reconstructed PFBN, PFNA and InterTan intramedullary nail models, and assembled them on the fracture model. The ANSYS software was used to compare the femoral von Mises stress distribution, deformation distribution, and internal fixation stress distribution of each group under a load of 2100 N.Results: It could be seen that the femoral maximum stress, femoral maximum displacement, and maximum stress of internal fixation of the PFBN group were lower than those in the PFNA group and the InterTan group. The maximum femoral stress of the PFBN was 190.25 MPa, while the maximum stress of the femur of the PFNA and InterTan groups were 238.41 Mpa and 226.97 Mpa. The maximum femoral displacement of each group were located at the top of the femoral head, and the maximum displacement of the PFBN group was 14.373 mm, and the maximum displacement values of the PFNA and InterTan groups were 19.49 and 15.225 mm. For the stress distribution of intramedullary nail, the maximum stress of the three kinds of internal fixation was located on the main nail. The maximum stress of PFBN was 1191.8 MPa, compared with 2142.8 MPa for PFNA and 1702.3 MPa for InterTan. And the maximum stress on the PFBN pressure nail was 345.35 MPa, compared with 868.6 MPa for the PFNA spiral blade and 545.5 MPa for InterTan interlocking twin nails. Conclusion:Compared with PFNA and InterTan, PFBN has better mechanical properties. The biomechanical characteristics of PFBN are more advantageous than PFNA and InterTan internal fixation system in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Analysis of Proximal Femur Bionic Nail (PFBN) Compared with Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation and InterTan in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Wang

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the conduction of stress in the femoral head is actually affected by many factors, chief among them is the weight-bearing area of the femoral head as the direct active surface of the joint force in standing posture [10,14]. In the research on FEA, the distribution and size of the weight-bearing area can be well reflected by establishing a pelvis and entire hip joint model [15][16][17][18]. However, in the FE modeling approach of the pelvis and entire hip joint, the numerical simulation of cartilage and complex algorithm defining for joint contact relationship need to be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element modeling of proximal femur with quantifiable weight-bearing area in standing position

Yang

Lin

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The positional distribution and size of the weight-bearing area of the femoral head in the standing position as well as the direct active surface of joint force can directly affect the result of finite element (FE) stress analysis. However, the division of this area was vague, imprecise, and un-individualized in most studies related to separate FE models of the femur. The purpose of this study was to quantify the positional distribution and size of the weight-bearing area of the femoral head in standing position by a set of simple methods, to realize individualized reconstruction of the proximal femur FE model. Methods: Five adult volunteers were recruited for an X-ray and CT examination in the same simulated bipedal standing position with a specialized patented device. We extracted these image data, calculated the 2D weightbearing area on the X-ray image, reconstructed the 3D model of the proximal femur based on CT data, and registered them to realize the 2D weight-bearing area to 3D transformation as the quantified weight-bearing surface. One of the 3D models of the proximal femur was randomly selected for finite element analysis (FEA), and we defined three different loading surfaces and compared their FEA results. Results: A total of 10 weight-bearing surfaces in 5 volunteers were constructed, and they were mainly distributed on the dome and anterolateral of the femoral head with a crescent shape, in the range of 1218.63-1, 871.06 mm 2. The results of FEA showed that stress magnitude and distribution in proximal femur FE models among three different loading conditions had significant differences, and the loading case with the quantized weightbearing area was more in accordance with the physical phenomenon of the hip. Conclusion: This study confirmed an effective FE modeling method of the proximal femur, which can quantify the weight-bearing area to define a more reasonable load surface setting without increasing the actual modeling difficulty.

show abstract

“…Despite the availability of several studies regarding the effects of fracture configuration and the type of implants on the success of stabilization in femoral neck fractures, no consensus has been achieved on this subject matter [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Jiantao et al [18] investigated the optimal placement of cannulated screws in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixation of femoral neck fractures with three cannulated screws: biomechanical changes at critical fracture angles

Öner¹,

Paksoy²,

Özer³

2020

Journal of Surgery and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dynamic finite element analysis of implants for femoral neck fractures simulating walking

Abstract: DSCS is expected to be paramount for treatment of unstable femoral neck fractures.

Cited by 11 publications

References 35 publications

Finite Element Analysis of Proximal Femur Bionic Nail (PFBN) Compared with Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation and InterTan in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Finite Element Analysis of Proximal Femur Bionic Nail (PFBN) Compared with Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation and InterTan in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Finite element modeling of proximal femur with quantifiable weight-bearing area in standing position

Fixation of femoral neck fractures with three cannulated screws: biomechanical changes at critical fracture angles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About