Journal of Biomechanics
Volume 42, Issue 3 , Pages 234-241 , 9 February 2009

Validation of subject-specific automated p-FE analysis of the proximal femur

  • Nir Trabelsi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
    • ,
  • Zohar Yosibash

      Affiliations

    • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +97286477103.
    • ,
  • Charles Milgrom

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel

,Accepted 28 October 2008.

References 

  1. Bessho M, Ohnishi I, Matsuyama J, Matsumoto T, Imai K, Nakamura K. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J. Biomechanics. 2007;40:1745–1753
  2. Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1977;59:954–962
  3. Cody DD, Gross GJ, Hou FJ, Spencer HJ, Goldstein SA, Fyhrie DP. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J. Biomechanics. 1999;32:1013–1020
  4. Cody DD, Hou FJ, Divine GW, Fyhrie DP. Short term in vivo study of proximal femoral finite element modeling. J. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2000;28:408–414
  5. Helgason B, Taddei F, Palsson H, Schileo E, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, et al. A modified method for assigning material properties to fe models of bones. Med. Eng. Phys. 2008;30:444–453
  6. Keyak JH, Falkinstein Y. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. J. Med. Eng. Phys. 2003;25:781–787
  7. Keyak JH, Meagher JM, Skinner HB, Mote CD. Automated three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone: a new method. J. Biomed. Eng. 1990;12:389–397
  8. Lotz JC, Gerhart TN, Hayes WC. Mechanical properties of trabecular bone from the proximal femur: a quantitative CT study. J. Comput. Assisted Tomography. 1990;14(1):107–114
  9. Peng L, Bai J, Zeng X, Zhou Y. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. J. Med. Eng. Phys. 2006;28:227–233
  10. Luo, Q., 2003. Artifacts in X-ray CT. Research Imaging Center, University of Texas Health Science Center, TX 78229. URL: http://ric.uthscsa.edu/personalpages/lancaste/DI2_Projects_2003/XrayCT_artifacts.pdf.
  11. Schileo E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J. Biomechanics. 2007;40:2982–2989
  12. Schileo, E., Dall’Ara, E., Taddei, F., Malandrino, A., Malandrino, A., Schotkamp, T., Viceconti, M., 2008. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J. Biomechanics 41, 2483–2491.
  13. Taddei F, Schileo E, Helgason B, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. J. Med. Eng. Phys. 2007;29:973–979
  14. Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, Radermacher K, Weichert D, Forst R. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE simulation of the proximal femur. J. Biomechanics. 2000;33:1325–1330
  15. Yosibash Z, Trabelsi N, Milgrom C. Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J. Biomechanics. 2007;40:3688–3699
  16. Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joscowicz L, Milgrom C. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. ASME J. Biomechanics Eng. 2007;129(3):297–309

PII: S0021-9290(08)00551-4

doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.039

Journal of Biomechanics
Volume 42, Issue 3 , Pages 234-241 , 9 February 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution