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.

It must be noted however, that in this instance the fixed boundary condition resulted in a<br />

much higher level of stress at the stem tip than the muscle supported femur (Fig. 3<br />

region 4 and Fig. 4).<br />

5. DISCUSSION<br />

Figure 4: Sagittal plane section highlighting the influence restrained<br />

and musculoskeletal boundary condition have on end of stem stress.<br />

In this study FE models of the femur both pre and post total knee arthroplasty were<br />

examined. The main aim of this work was to compare the influence of FE boundary<br />

conditions on the mechanical environment of the femur. Based on the findings of this<br />

study it is suggested that if the mechanical environment of the entire femur is of interest<br />

as in the case of a long stemmed hip or knee implant, then musculoskeletal BCs are<br />

essential to produce reliable results and to avoid artifacts due to unrealistic fixed<br />

boundaries. However, if the mechanical stress/strain field close to the region of load<br />

application is required (e.g. to examine primary stemless knee replacement or<br />

unicompartmental knee replacements) simple restrained boundary conditions can<br />

provide acceptable results at a greatly reduced computational cost.<br />

As with any FE model, there are currently a number of limitations that must be<br />

considered when interpretating the results presented in this study; only one position in a<br />

single gait cycle has been investigated in the current study and as the muscles take a<br />

more active role in the distribution of stress away from the bone in flexion it is likely<br />

that a more noticeable difference between models may be observed. It must also be<br />

noted that simplified loading was applied at the knee joint. In this instance only the<br />

vertical reaction forces and patella-femoral forces were modelled, Shear forces and<br />

moments were not considered. Finally only the passive properties of the muscles<br />

directly connected to the femur were modelled in this study (i.e. Compressive<br />

contribution of muscles running from pelvis to tibia/fibula not considered).

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!