finite element (FE) models of long bones constructed from computed-tomography (CT) data are emerging as an invaluable tool in the field of bone biomechanics. However, the performance of such FE models is highly dependent on the accurate capture of geometry and appropriate assignment of material properties.
In this study, a combined numerical–experimental study is performed comparing FE-predicted surface strains with strain-gauge measurements. Thirty-six major, cadaveric, long bones (humerus, radius, femur and tibia), which cover a wide range of bone sizes, were tested under three-point bending and torsion. The FE models were constructed from trans-axial volumetric CT scans, and the segmented bone images were corrected for partial-volume effects. The material properties (Young’s modulus for cortex, density–modulus relationship for trabecular bone and Poisson’s ratio) were calibrated by minimizing the error between experiments and simulations among all bones.
The R2 values of the measured strains versus load under three-point bending and torsion were 0.96–0.99 and 0.61–0.99, respectively, for all bones in our dataset. The errors of the calculated FE strains in comparison to those measured using strain gauges in the mechanical tests ranged from −6% to 7% under bending and from −37% to 19% under torsion.
The observation of comparatively low errors and high correlations between the FE-predicted strains and the experimental strains, across the various types of bones and loading conditions (bending and torsion), validates our approach to bone segmentation and our choice of material properties.
|2008||Schileo E, Dall’Ara E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Schotkamp T, Baleani M, Viceconti M. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech. August 7, 2008;41(11):2483-2491.|
|1996||Hangartner TN, Gilsanz V. Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. October 1996;11(10):1518-1525.|
|1998||Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Weinans H, Rüegsegger P. Finite element analysis of trabecular bone structure: a comparison of image-based meshing techniques. J Biomech. 1998;31(12):1187-1192.|
|2007||Beaupied H, Lespessailles E, Benhamou C-L. Evaluation of macrostructural bone biomechanics. Joint Bone Spine. May 2007;74(3):233-239.|
|2007||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 Biomech. 2007;40(8):1745-1753.|
|2008||Austman RL, Milner JS, Holdsworth DW, Dunning CE. The effect of the density–modulus relationship selected to apply material properties in a finite element model of long bone. J Biomech. November 14, 2008;41(15):3171-3176.|
|2003||Van Rietbergen B, Huiskes R, Eckstein F, Rüegsegger P. Trabecular bone tissue strains in the healthy and osteoporotic human femur. J Bone Miner Res. October 2003;18(10):1781-1788.|
|1996||Augat P, Reeb H, Claes LE. Prediction of fracture load at different skeletal sites by geometric properties of the cortical shell. J Bone Miner Res. 1996;11(9):1356-1363.|
|2003||Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. July 2003;36(7):897-904.|
|1976||Carter DR, Hayes WC. Bone compressive strength: the influence of density and strain rate. Science. September 10, 1976;194(4270):1174-1176.|
|2008||Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjólfsson S, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23(2):135-146.|
|1973||Evans FG. Mechanical Properties of Bone. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1973.|
|2006||Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, Gill HS, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2457-2467.|
|2007||Schileo E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech. 2007;40(13):2982-2989.|
|2013||Nishiyama KK, Gilchrist S, Guy P, Cripton P, Boyd SK. Proximal femur bone strength estimated by a computationally fast finite element analysis in a sideways fall configuration. J Biomech. April 26, 2013;46(7):1231-1236.|
|2013||Kersh ME, Pandy MG, Bui QM, Jones AC, Arns CH, Knackstedt MA, Seeman E, Zebaze RMD. The heterogeneity in femoral neck structure and strength. J Bone Miner Res. May 2013;28(5):1022-1028.|
|2018||Bakalova LP, Andreasen CM, Thomsen JS, Brüel A, Hauge E-M, Kiil BJ, Delaisse J-M, Andersen TL, Kersh ME. Intracortical bone mechanics are related to pore morphology and remodeling in human bone. J Bone Miner Res. December 2018;33(12):2177-2185.|
|2012||Nishiyama KKS. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Microarchitecture and Estimated Bone Strength [PhD thesis]. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary; October 2012.|
|2017||Fung A. Experimental Validation of Finite Element Predicted Bone Strain in the Human Metatarsal [Master's thesis]. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary; April 2017.|
|2020||Michalski AS. A Quantitative Computed Tomography Approach Towards Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening [PhD thesis]. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary; March 2020.|
|2019||Knowles NK. Improving Material Mapping in Glenohumeral Finite Element Models: A Multi-Level Evaluation [PhD thesis]. University of Western Ontario; 2019.|