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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

implantation [1-4] assume the femur to be fully restrained at some distance from the<br />

region of interest (e.g. when investigating the knee, the proximal femur would be<br />

restrained in all degrees of freedom). Rigid fixation of the femur is often employed in<br />

other areas of biomechanics research such as in-vitro laboratory testing [e.g. 5].<br />

However, this type of fixation is not very representative of the in-vivo situation and as<br />

such is likely to introduce some level of error into the results. Recent studies suggest the<br />

inclusion of muscle and ligament contributions to FE models can significantly influence<br />

the patterns and levels of stress in the lower limb [6-9]. However, the complex nature of<br />

the musculoskeletal structure and the increase in required input variables for such<br />

models presents a number of challenges.<br />

As such the aim of this study is to try and quantify the influence of boundary conditions<br />

on the mechanical environment in the femur both pre and post total knee arthroplasty,<br />

with specific focus on determining when it is necessary to incorporate more<br />

physiological BCs to produce reliable results and when it is acceptable to use simplified<br />

constraints without significantly impacting on the results of these analyses.<br />

3. METHOD<br />

The femur geometry used for this study was that of the large left fourth generation<br />

composite femur [10]. This model is freely available in the public domain and was<br />

reconstructed from scans of the composite biomechanical bones (Sawbones, Pacific<br />

Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA, USA). This femur represents a good ‘average’<br />

geometry for a normal human femur while also allowing comparison between<br />

computational simulations and in-vitro laboratory tests. Physical implant measurements<br />

and templates were used in conjunction with computer aided design software (Autodesk<br />

Inventor 2010, Autodesk inc. San Rafael, California, U.S) to develop 3D models of the<br />

femoral implants. This package was also used to incorporate surgical cuts into the<br />

composite femur geometry to accommodate a total stabilising (TS) implant with long<br />

offset stem (Stryker, UK Triathlon series). Surgical resections in the case of implanted<br />

models were carried out according to the manufacturer’s surgical protocol for the<br />

implant investigated. In the current study bone was assumed to be isotropic as in<br />

previous studies [e.g. 3]. The properties for cancellous (Young’s modulus E = 155<br />

MPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3) and cortical (E = 16700 MPa, ν = 0.3) bone structures<br />

were taken from sawbones product information, and are within the range of reported<br />

values from current literature [11, 12]. Typical properties for a cobalt chromium alloy<br />

were used for the implant and offset adapter (E = 210000 MPa, ν = 0.3) while properties<br />

of titanium were applied to the stem (E = 110000 MPa, ν = 0.3). Loading data<br />

corresponding to a single legged stance were obtained from telemetric implant studies<br />

to determine realistic in-vivo loads acting on the hip and knee joints [13]. These loads<br />

were then applied to the femur as distributed pressure loads over realistic contact areas.<br />

In this study the bone-implant interface was tied, modelling full osseointegration of the<br />

implants into the bone structure. Based on convergence studies the average element size<br />

for all FE meshes in this study was 2mm.<br />

Two different boundary conditions were applied to the femur models. In the first the<br />

displacements at the mid-shaft of the femur were restrained in all three directions (Fig.<br />

1a and 1c). The second model was created with no restraints applied to the femur itself;

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!