Stress and Strain Analysis of Femur in Taylor Spatial Frame

Authors

Abstract

Correction of femur deformity can be accomplished using both external and internal fixtures. The advantages of using circular external fixture include less soft tissue injury, better bone alignment and enhanced strain on cutting section, which causes less healing time. This paper focuses on experimental and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) study of circular external fixture, including two rings and six adjustable struts, with six degrees of freedom (Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF)). Femur 3d model was created using Mimics® software while FEA was accomplished using ABAQUS® software. The FEA was based on the assumptions, that the bone is loaded equal to a standing person load. The femur model was assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous in both cortical and spongy phases. FEA results were verified by corresponding strain measured in experimental tests. Based on these results, the maximum value of stress occurs in the location of pins and half-pins. Moreover, the maximum stress in the connection location of pins is higher than those of half-pins. Results show that substitution of half-pins with pins, in the points with maximum stress, causes reduction of stress and thus the pain is reduced.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Fragomen, AT, Rozbruch SR (2007) The mechanics of external fixation. HSS Journal 3(1): 13-29.
[2] Site of Healthcare professionals, Available:  https://www.smith-nephew.com/
[3] Cross AR, Lewis DD, Murphy ST, Rigaud S, Madison JB, Kehoe MM, Rapoff AJ (2001) Effects of ring diameter and wire tension on the axial biomechanics of four-ring circular external skeletal fixator constructs. Am J Vet Res 62(7): 1025-1030.
[4]  Khurana A, Byrne C, Evans S, Tanaka H, Haraharan K (2010) Comparison of transverse wires and half pins in Taylor Spatial Frame: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res 5(1): 23.
[5]  Tan BB, Shanmugam R, Gunalan R, Chua YP, Hossain G, Saw A (2014) A biomechanical comparison between Taylor’s Spatial Frame and Ilizarov external fixator. Malays Orthop J 8(2): 35.
[6]  Schiedel F, Vogt B, Wacker S, Pöpping J, Bosch K, Rödl R, Rosenbaum D (2012) Walking ability of children with a hexapod external ring fixator (TSF®) and foot plate mounting at the lower leg. Gait Posture 36(3): 500-505.
[7] Shyam AK, Singh SU, Modi HN, Song HR, Lee SH, An H (2009) Leg lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using the Ilizarov apparatus: a novel concept of tibia callus subsidence and its influencing factors. International orthopaedics 33(6): 1753-1759.
[8]  Dobbe JG, Strackee SD, Schreurs AW, Jonges R, Carelsen B, Vroemen JC, Streekstra GJ (2011) Computer-assisted planning and navigation for corrective distal radius osteotomy, based on pre-and intraoperative imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(1): 182-190.
[9] Lenarz C, Bledsoe G, Watson JT (2008) Circular external fixation frames with divergent half pins: a pilot biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(12): 2933.
[10] Qiao F, Li D, Jin Z, Gao Y, Zhou T, He J, Cheng L (2015) Application of 3D printed customized external fixator in fracture reduction. Injury 46(6): 1150-1155.
[11] Trabelsi N, Yosibash Z, Wutte C, Augat P, Eberle S (2011) Patient-specific finite element analysis of the human femur—a double-blinded biomechanical validation. J Biomech 44(9): 1666-1672.
[12] Yosibash Z, Mayo RP, Dahan G, Trabelsi N, Amir G, Milgrom C (2014) Predicting the stiffness and strength of human femurs with real metastatic tumors. Bone 69: 180-190.
[13] Yosibash Z, Trabelsi N, Milgrom C (2007) Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J Biomech 40(16): 3688-3699.
[14] Wang CJ, Yettram AL, Yao MS, Procter P (1998) Finite element analysis of a Gamma nail within a fractured femur. Med Eng Phys 20(9): 677-683.
Journal of Solid and Fluid Mechanics
Volume 8, Issue 1
April 2018
Pages 13-21

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics