A round-robin finite element analysis of human femur mechanics between seven participating laboratories with experimental validation

References

• ASTM F2996-13 2013. Standard practice for finite element analysis (FEA) of non-modular metallic orthopaedic hip femoral stems. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
   Google Scholar
• Behrens BA, Nolte I, Wefstaedt P, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Bouguecha A. 2009. Numerical investigations on the strain-adaptive bone remodelling in the periprosthetic femur: influence of the boundary conditions. Biomed Eng Online. 8(1):7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen G, Wu FY, Liu ZC, Yang K, Cui F. 2015. Comparisons of node-based and element-based approaches of assigning bone material properties onto subject-specific finite element models. Med Eng Phys. 37(8):808–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cong A, Buijs JO, Dragomir-Daescu D. 2011. In situ parameter identification of optimal density-elastic modulus relationships in subject-specific finite element models of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys. 33(2):164–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall’Ara E, Luisier B, Schmidt R, Kainberger F, Zysset P, Pahr D. 2013. A nonlinear QCT-based finite element model validation study for the human femur tested in two configurations in vitro. Bone. 52:27–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreischarf M, Zander T, Shirazi-Adl A, Puttlitz CM, Adam CJ, Chen CS, Goel VK, Kiapour A, Kim YH, Labus KM, et al. 2014. Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together. J Biomech. 47(8):1757–1766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberle S, Gottlinger M, Augat P. 2013a. An investigation to determine if a single validated density-elasticity relationship can be used for subject specific finite element analyses of human long bones. Med Eng Phys. 35(7):875–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberle S, Gottlinger M, Augat P. 2013b. Individual density-elasticity relationships improve accuracy of subject-specific finite element models of human femurs. J Biomech. 46(13):2152–2157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan X, Chen Z, Jin Z, Zhang Q, Zhang X, Peng Y. 2018. Parametric study of patient-specific femoral locking plates based on a combined musculoskeletal multibody dynamics and finite element modeling. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 232(2):114–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fregly BJ, Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Delp SL, Banks SA, Pandy MG, D’Lima DD. 2012. Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J Orthop Res. 30(4):503–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambli R, Bettamer A, Allaoui S. 2012. Finite element prediction of proximal femur fracture pattern based on orthotropic behaviour law coupled to quasi-brittle damage. Med Eng Phys. 34(2):202–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helgason B, Gilchrist S, Ariza O, Vogt P, Enns-Bray W, Widmer RP, Fitze T, Palsson H, Pauchard Y, Guy P, et al. 2016. The influence of the modulus-density relationship and the material mapping method on the simulated mechanical response of the proximal femur in side-ways fall loading configuration. Med Eng Phys. 38(7):679–689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjolfsson S, Viceconti M. 2008. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech. 23(2):135–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzer A, Schroder C, Woiczinski M, Sadoghi P, Scharpf A, Heimkes B, Jansson V. 2013. Subject-specific finite element simulation of the human femur considering inhomogeneous material properties: a straightforward method and convergence study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 110(1):82–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu P, Wu T, Wang HZ, Qi XZ, Yao J, Cheng XD, Chen W, Zhang YZ. 2017. Influence of different boundary conditions in finite element analysis on pelvic biomechanical load transmission. Orthop Surg. 9(1):115–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC 17025 2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organization for Standardization 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Kluess D, Souffrant R, Mittelmeier W, Wree A, Schmitz KP, Bader R. 2009. A convenient approach for finite-element-analyses of orthopaedic implants in bone contact: modeling and experimental validation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 95(1):23–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luisier B, Dall’Ara E, Pahr DH. 2014. Orthotropic HR-pQCT-based FE models improve strength predictions for stance but not for side-way fall loading compared to isotropic QCT-based FE models of human femurs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 32:287–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirzaali MJ, Schwiedrzik JJ, Thaiwichai S, Best JP, Michler J, Zysset PK, Wolfram U. 2016. Mechanical properties of cortical bone and their relationships with age, gender, composition and microindentation properties in the elderly. Bone. 93:196–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. 2003. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. 36(7):897–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng L, Bai J, Zeng X, Zhou Y. 2006. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys. 28(3):227–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossman T, Kushvaha V, Dragomir-Daescu D. 2016. QCT/FEA predictions of femoral stiffness are strongly affected by boundary condition modeling. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 19(2):208–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruegsegger P, Kalender WA. 1993. A phantom for standardization and quality control in peripheral bone measurements by PQCT and DXA. Phys Med Biol. 38:1963–1970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schileo E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. 2007. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech. 40(13):2982–2989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soodmand E, Kluess D, Varady PA, Cichon R, Schwarze M, Gehweiler D, Niemeyer F, Pahr D, Woiczinski M. 2018. Interlaboratory comparison of femur surface reconstruction from CT data compared to reference optical 3D scan. Biomed Eng Online. 17:29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternheim A, Giladi O, Gortzak Y, Drexler M, Salai M, Trabelsi N, Milgrom C, Yosibash Z. 2018. Pathological fracture risk assessment in patients with femoral metastases using CT-based finite element methods. A retrospective clinical study. Bone. 110:215–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taddei F, Schileo E, Helgason B, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. 2007. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. Med Eng Phys. 29(9):973–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor M, Prendergast PJ. 2015. Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities? J Biomech. 48(5):767–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trabelsi N, Yosibash Z, Wutte C, Augat P, Eberle S. 2011. Patient-specific finite element analysis of the human femur–a double-blinded biomechanical validation. J Biomech. 44(9):1666–1672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waanders D, Janssen D, Mann KA, Verdonschot N. 2011. Morphology based cohesive zone modeling of the cement-bone interface from postmortem retrievals. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 4(7):1492–1503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. 1994. Effects of fit and bonding characteristics of femoral stems on adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech Eng. 116(4):393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, Radermacher K, Weichert D, Forst R. 2000. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech. 33(10):1325–1330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yosibash Z, Plitman MR, Dahan G, Trabelsi N, Amir G, Milgrom C. 2014. Predicting the stiffness and strength of human femurs with real metastatic tumors. Bone. 69:180–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zysset P, Pahr D, Engelke K, Genant HK, McClung MR, Kendler DL, Recknor C, Kinzl M, Schwiedrzik J, Museyko O, et al. 2015. Comparison of proximal femur and vertebral body strength improvements in the FREEDOM trial using an alternative finite element methodology. Bone. 81:122–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar