Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter May 15, 2014

Need for CT-based bone density modelling in finite element analysis of a shoulder arthroplasty revealed through a novel method for result analysis

  • Werner Pomwenger EMAIL logo , Karl Entacher , Herbert Resch and Peter Schuller-Götzburg

Abstract

Treatment of common pathologies of the shoulder complex, such as rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis, is usually performed by total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Survival of the glenoid component is still a problem in TSA, whereas the humeral component is rarely subject to failure. To set up a finite element analysis (FEA) for simulation of a TSA in order to gain insight into the mechanical behaviour of a glenoid implant, the modelling procedure and the application of boundary conditions are of major importance because the computed result strongly depends upon the accuracy and sense of realism of the model. The goal of this study was to show the influence on glenoid stress distribution of a patient-specific bone density distribution compared with a homogenous bone density distribution for the purpose of generating a valid model in future FEA studies of the shoulder complex. Detailed information on the integration of bone density properties using existing numerical models as well as the applied boundary conditions is provided. A novel approach involving statistical analysis of values derived from an FEA is demonstrated using a cumulative distribution function. The results show well the mechanically superior behaviour of a realistic bone density distribution and therefore emphasise the necessity for patient-specific simulations in biomechanical and medical simulations.


Corresponding author: Werner Pomwenger, Department of Information Technology, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Urstein Süd 1, 5412 Puch, Austria, Phone: +43/50/2211-1317, Fax: +43/50/2211-1317, E-mail: ; and Research Program in Prosthetics, Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Paracelsus Medical University, Strubergasse 21, 5020 Salzburg, Austria

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF L526-B05 and the PMU-FFF Rise Project R-09/03/003-SCH.

References

[1] Anglin C, Tolhurst P, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Glenoid cancellous bone strength and modulus. J Biomech 1999; 32: 1091–1097.10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00087-1Search in Google Scholar

[2] Anglin C, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Shoulder prosthesis subluxation: theory and experiment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000; 9: 104–114.10.1067/mse.2000.105139Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bartelt R, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty-five years or younger with osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 123–130.10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.006Search in Google Scholar

[4] Büchler P, Farron A. Benefits of an anatomical reconstruction of the humeral head during shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2004; 19: 16–23.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.09.009Search in Google Scholar

[5] Büchler P, Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Iannotti JP, Farron A. A finite element model of the shoulder: application to the comparison of normal and osteoarthritic joints. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002; 17: 630–639.10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00106-7Search in Google Scholar

[6] Bergmann G, Graichen F, Bender A, Kääb M, Rohlmann A, Westerhoff P. In vivo glenohumeral contact forces–measurements in the first patient 7 months postoperatively. J Biomech 2007; 40: 2139–2149.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.10.037Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Billingsley P. Probability and measure. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1986.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 2279–2292.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977; 59: 954–962.10.2106/00004623-197759070-00021Search in Google Scholar

[10] Couteau B, Mansat P, Mansat M, Darmana R, Egan J. In vivo characterization of glenoid with use of computed tomography. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10: 116–122.10.1067/mse.2001.112884Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Devore JL, Berk KN. Modern mathematical statistics with applications. 2nd ed. New York: Springer 2012.10.1007/978-1-4614-0391-3Search in Google Scholar

[12] Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 859–863.10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Frich LH, Jensen NC, Odgaard A, Pedersen CM, Søjbjerg JO, Dalstra M. Bone strength and material properties of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997, 6: 97–104.10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90029-XSearch in Google Scholar

[14] Gupta S, Prosenjit D. Bone geometry and mechanical properties of the human scapula using computed tomography data. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2004; 17: 61–70.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Taylor M, Emery RJ. Glenohumeral kinematics following total shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element investigation. J Orthop Res 2007; 25: 108–115.10.1002/jor.20290Search in Google Scholar

[16] Hvid I, Bentzen SM, Linde F, Mosekilde L, Pongsoipetch B. X-ray quantitative computed tomography: the relations to physical properties of proximal tibial trabecular bone specimens. J Biomech 1989; 22: 837–844.10.1016/0021-9290(89)90067-5Search in Google Scholar

[17] Janssen D, Mann KA, Verdonschot N. Micro-mechanical modeling of the cement-bone interface: the effect of friction, morphology and material properties on the micromechanical response. J Biomech 2008; 41: 3158–3163.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.08.020Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kasten P, Pape G, Raiss P, Bruckner T, Rickert M, Zeifang F, et al. Mid-term survivorship analysis of a shoulder replacement with a keeled glenoid and a modern cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92: 387–392.10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.23073Search in Google Scholar

[20] Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ. Stress analysis of glenoid component designs for shoulder arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1997; 211: 467–474.10.1243/0954411981534583Search in Google Scholar

[19] Lacroix D, Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of glenoid replacement prostheses: a comparison of keeled and pegged anchorage systems. J Biomech Eng 2000; 122: 430–436.10.1115/1.1286318Search in Google Scholar

[21] Mansat P, Barea C, Hobatho MC, Darmana R, Mansat M. Anatomic variation of the mechanical properties of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998; 7: 109–115.10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90219-1Search in Google Scholar

[22] Matsen FA, Clinton J, Lynch J, Bertelsen A, Richardson ML. Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 885–896.10.2106/JBJS.G.01263Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Meyr K. Standard handbook of biomedical engineering anddesign, chapter 8: bone mechanics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Professional 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ, Resch H. Structural analysis of an offset-keel design glenoid component compared with a center-keel design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10: 568–579.10.1067/mse.2001.118630Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Leyvraz PF. The fixation of the cemented femoral component. Effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement-bone surface. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82: 297–303.10.1302/0301-620X.82B2 .9613Search in Google Scholar

[26] Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech 1988; 21: 155–168.10.1016/0021-9290(88)90008-5Search in Google Scholar

[27] Schaffler MB, Burr DB. Stiffness of compact bone: effects of porosity and density. J Biomech 1988; 21: 13–16.10.1016/0021-9290(88)90186-8Search in Google Scholar

[28] Soslowsky LJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, Pawluk RJ, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Quantitation of in situ contact areas at the glenohumeral joint: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Res 1992; 10: 524–534.10.1002/jor.1100100407Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Terrier A, Büchler P, Farron A. Bone-cement interface of the glenoid component: stress analysis for varying cement thickness. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005; 20: 710–717.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.03.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Terrier A, Büchler P, Farron A. Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15: 515–520.10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Viceconti M, Olsen S, Nolte LP, Burton K. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005; 20: 451–454.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.01.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[32] Walch G, Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Boileau P, Mole D, Adeleine P. The influence of glenohumeral prosthetic mismatch on glenoid radiolucent lines: results of a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A: 2186–2191.10.2106/00004623-200212000-00010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Walch G, Young AA, Melis B, Gazielly D, Loew M, Boileau P. Results of a convex-back cemented keeled glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis: multicenter study with a follow-up greater than 5 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 385–394.10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-8-9
Accepted: 2014-4-11
Published Online: 2014-5-15
Published in Print: 2014-10-1

©2014 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2013-0125/html
Scroll to top button