4.5 Article

Physical validation of a patient-specific contact finite element model of the ankle

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 1662-1669

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.01.024

关键词

ankle; finite element; validation; articular joint contact

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR46001, AR048939, R01 AR046601-05, R24 AR046601, P50 AR048939, R01 AR046601, P50 AR048939-019002] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A validation study was conducted to determine the extent to which computational ankle contact finite element (FE) results agreed with experimentally measured tibio-talar contact stress. Two cadaver ankles were loaded in separate test sessions, during which ankle contact stresses were measured with a high-resolution (Tekscan) pressure sensor. Corresponding contact FE analyses were subsequently performed for comparison. The agreement was good between FE-computed and experimentally measured mean (3.2% discrepancy for one ankle, 19.3% for the other) and maximum (1.5% and 6.2%) contact stress, as well as for contact area (1.7% and 14.9%). There was also excellent agreement between histograms of fractional areas of cartilage experiencing specific ranges of contact stress. Finally, point-by-point comparisons between the computed and measured contact stress distributions over the articular surface showed substantial agreement, with correlation coefficients of 90% for one ankle and 86% for the other. In the past, general qualitative, but little direct quantitative agreement has been demonstrated with articular joint contact FE models. The methods used for this validation enable formal comparison of computational and experimental results, and open the way for objective statistical measures of regional correlation between FE-computed contact stress distributions from comparison articular joint surfaces (e.g., those from an intact versus those with residual intra-articular fracture incongruity). (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据