Research Papers

Predicting Bone Remodeling in Response to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Computational Study Using Mechanobiochemical Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Pouria Tavakkoli Avval

Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering,
Ryerson University,
350 Victoria Street,
Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
e-mail: ptavakko@ryerson.ca

Václav Klika

Department of Mathematics,
FNSPE, Czech Technical University in Prague,
Trojanova 13, Prague 120 00, Czech Republic
e-mail: klika@it.cas.cz

Habiba Bougherara

Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering,
Ryerson University,
350 Victoria Street,
Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
e-mail: habiba.bougherara@ryerson.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received July 27, 2013; final manuscript received January 15, 2014; accepted manuscript posted February 6, 2014; published online April 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Carlijn Bouten.

J Biomech Eng 136(5), 051002 (Apr 10, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1335; doi: 10.1115/1.4026642 History: Received July 27, 2013; Revised January 15, 2014; Accepted February 06, 2014

Periprosthetic bone loss following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious concern leading to the premature failure of prosthetic implant. Therefore, investigating bone remodeling in response to hip arthroplasty is of paramount for the purpose of designing long lasting prostheses. In this study, a thermodynamic-based theory, which considers the coupling between the mechanical loading and biochemical affinity as stimulus for bone formation and resorption, was used to simulate the femoral density change in response to THA. The results of the numerical simulations using 3D finite element analysis revealed that in Gruen zone 7, after remarkable postoperative bone loss, the bone density started recovering and got stabilized after 9% increase. The most significant periprosthetic bone loss was found in Gruen zone 7 (−17.93%) followed by zone 1 (−13.77%). Conversely, in zone 4, bone densification was observed (+4.63%). The results have also shown that the bone density loss in the posterior region of the proximal metaphysis was greater than that in the anterior side. This study provided a quantitative figure for monitoring the distribution variation of density throughout the femoral bone. The predicted bone density distribution before and after THA agree well with the bone morphology and previous results from the literature.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of bone as an open thermodynamic system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

CAD model.: (a) Femoral shaft, (b) femoral head and neck, and (c) hip implant.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Iterative process of the thermodynamic-based model for bone remodeling simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Graph showing the location of constraints and loadings on the models. (a) Intact femur, and (b) post-operative femur.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Convergence of the bone remodeling simulations for pre- and post operative femur

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Bone density distribution of the intact femur obtained from the thermodynamic-based model (gr/cm3). (a) Anterior view, and (b) posterior view.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Bone density distribution in the coronal section of intact femur. Obtained from (a) thermodynamic-based model, and (b) X-ray (Reproduced with permission from Ref. [59]).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Bone density distribution of post-operative femur obtained from the thermodynamic-based model (gr/cm3). (a) Anterior view, (b) posterior view, and (c) coronal section of posterior view.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Graph showing the post-operative bone density versus. iteration for zone 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Percent bone loss/formation in response to THA. (a) Posterior view, (b) three transverse segments, and (c) medial view.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Graph showing changes in the average bone density in Gruen zones after convergence (%)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Graph comparing the periprosthetic bone loss/formation observed by Li et al. [18] (Simple font) with those obtained by thermodynamic-based model (Italic font). Re-drawn from Ref. [18] with permission.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Distribution of bone density (gr/cm3) in post-operative femur. (a) In the presence of mechanical loading (b) in the absence of mechanical loading.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Graph showing the bone density distribution (gr/cm3) in 1 cm3 cortical bone resulting from (a) high level stress, and (b) low level stress.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Average density of intact femur (gr/cm3) for different values of βi

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Average density of intact femur (gr/cm3) for different values of Ji and δα

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Average density of intact femur (gr/cm3) for different values of Dα (ref)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Percent bone loss/formation for (a) β7 = 6, and (b) β7 = 5.1




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In