4.2 Article

Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: Development, validation and sensitivity studies

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.1894148

关键词

pelvis; finite element; biomechanics; strain gauges

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A better understanding of the three-dimensional mechanics of the pelvis, at the patient-specific level, may lead to improved treatment modalities. Although finite element (FE) models of the pelvis have been developed, validation by direct comparison with subject-specific strains has not been performed, and previous models used simplifying assumptions regarding geometry and material properties. The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a realistic FE model of the pelvis using subject-specific estimates of bone geometry, location-dependent cortical thickness and trabecular bone elastic modulus, and to assess the sensitivity of FE strain predictions to assumptions regarding cortical bone thickness as well as bone and cartilage material properties. A FE model of a cadaveric pelvis was created using subject-specific computed tomography, image data. Acetabular loading was applied to the same pelvis using a prosthetic femoral stem in a fashion that could be easily duplicated in the computational model. Cortical bone strains were monitored with rosette strain gauges in ten locations on the left hemipelvis. FE strain predictions were compared directly with experimental results for validation. Overall, baseline FE predictions were strongly correlated with experimental results (r(2) = 0.824), with a best-fit line that was not statistically different than the line y = x (experimental strains = FE predicted strains). Changes to cortical bone thickness and elastic modulus had the largest effect on cortical bone strains. The FE model was less sensitive to changes in all other parameters. The methods developed and validated in this study will be useful for creating and analyzing patient-specific FE models to better understand the biomechanics of the pelvis.

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

4.2
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