27.12.2012 Views

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

cement acts perfectly, therefore it is rigidly bonded to the bone and to the implant. This<br />

condition will be further referred as “all glued”. When the life of the implant goes<br />

further, loosening may start to occur (the loosening scenario). For this condition, a<br />

friction coefficient of 1 was considered at the cement-bone interface, under the<br />

prosthesis. This premise intends to simulate a mid/long-term clinical scenario. The<br />

friction coefficient value is related to the capacity of the cement to fill the cavities of the<br />

cancellous bone and offer great resistance to slip, but at the same time allows interface<br />

separation [4]. This condition will be further referred as “with friction”. For this case,<br />

the contact between implant and cement was modeled with a friction coefficient of 0.25<br />

[19].<br />

Three different load cases were applied to the natural and implanted FE models (Table<br />

1). These load cases are representative of three physiological activities: climbing stairs<br />

(45º), descending stairs (60º) and isometric exercise (90º). Each one of these activities<br />

was described by the knee flexion angle, the patellofemoral joint reaction (PFJR) force<br />

and the two equal components of tibiofemoral joint reaction (TFJR) force corresponding<br />

to the medial and lateral femoral condyles [20]. One “fixed displacement” was<br />

considered, at the proximal extremity of the femur, for both models (Fig. 2). It must be<br />

highlighted that the magnitude of these boundary conditions is the same for both natural<br />

and implanted models. The minimal principal strains (MPS) in cancellous bone under<br />

prosthesis were graphically analyzed along three nodes alignments presented in Fig. 3,<br />

at the natural state and for the two cement-bone interface conditions described<br />

previously for the implanted state.<br />

Table 2 Loads by activity (Adapted from Matthews et al. [20])<br />

Activity Knee flexion angle (°)<br />

Tibiofemoral joint<br />

reaction force (N)<br />

Patellofemoral joint<br />

reaction force (N)<br />

Climbing stairs 45 2963 1756<br />

Descending stairs 60 2668 1746<br />

Isometric exercise 90 2698 3424<br />

Fig. 2 The Journey PFJ® model, with the<br />

boundary conditions signaled<br />

RESULTS<br />

Fig. 3 Frontal view of the cancellous bone FE<br />

model, with the measurement lines signaled<br />

The convergence rate for the displacements was less than 0.30% for 120 000 degrees-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!