IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/gcmbxx/v19y2016i2p208-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

QCT/FEA predictions of femoral stiffness are strongly affected by boundary condition modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Rossman
  • Vinod Kushvaha
  • Dan Dragomir-Daescu

Abstract

Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models of proximal femora must be validated with cadaveric experiments before using them to assess fracture risk in osteoporotic patients. During validation, it is essential to carefully assess whether the boundary condition (BC) modeling matches the experimental conditions. This study evaluated proximal femur stiffness results predicted by six different BC methods on a sample of 30 cadaveric femora and compared the predictions with experimental data. The average stiffness varied by 280% among the six BCs. Compared with experimental data, the predictions ranged from overestimating the average stiffness by 65% to underestimating it by 41%. In addition, we found that the BC that distributed the load to the contact surfaces similar to the expected contact mechanics predictions had the best agreement with experimental stiffness. We concluded that BC modeling introduced large variations in proximal femora stiffness predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Rossman & Vinod Kushvaha & Dan Dragomir-Daescu, 2016. "QCT/FEA predictions of femoral stiffness are strongly affected by boundary condition modeling," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 208-216, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:208-216
    DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2015.1006209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2015.1006209
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10255842.2015.1006209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:208-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.