A Controlled Variable Study of the Biomechanical Properties of the Proximal Femur before and after Cancellous Bone Removal

Abstract

Objective: The biomechanical characteristics of proximal femoral trabeculae are closely related to the occurrence and treatment of proximal femoral fractures. Therefore, it is of great significance to study its biomechanical effects of cancellous bone in the proximal femur. This study examines the biomechanical effects of the cancellous bone in the proximal femur using a controlled variable method, which provide a foundation for further research into the mechanical properties of the proximal femur.

Methods: Seventeen proximal femoral specimens were selected to scan by quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and the gray values of nine regions were measure to evaluated bone mineral density (BMD) using Mimics software. Then, an intact femur was fixed simulating unilateral standing position. Vertical compression experiments were then performed again after removing cancellous bone in the femoral head, femoral neck, and intertrochanteric region, and data were recorded. According to the controlled variable method, the femoral head, femoral neck, and intertrochanteric trabeculae were sequentially removed based on the axial loading of the intact femur, and the displacement and strain changes of the femur samples under axial loading were recorded. Gom software was used to measure and record displacement and strain maps of the femoral surface.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in anteroposterior displacement of cancellous bone destruction in the proximal femur (p < 0.001). Proximal femoral bone mass explained 77.5% of the strength variation, in addition proximal femoral strength was mainly affected by bone mass at the level of the upper outer, lower inner, lower greater trochanter, and lesser trochanter of the femoral head. The normal stress conduction of the proximal femur was destroyed after removing cancellous bone, the stress was concentrated in the femoral head and lateral femoral neck, and the femoral head showed a tendency to subside after destroying cancellous bone.

Conclusion: The trabecular removal significantly altered the strain distribution and biomechanical strength of the proximal femur, demonstrating an important role in supporting and transforming bending moment under the vertical load. In addition, the strength of the proximal femur mainly depends on the bone density of the femoral head and intertrochanteric region.

Keywords

Biomechanics / Bone density / Cancellous bone / Proximal femur

References

[1] LongA, YangD, JinL, ZhaoF, WangX, Zhang Y, et al. Admission inflammation markers influence long-term mortality in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Orthop Surg. 2024;16:38–46.

[2] CuiSS, ZhaoLK, ZhaoWJ, Ma JX, MaXL. Excess mortality for femoral intertrochanteric fracture patients aged 50 years and older treated surgically and conservatively in Tianjin, China: a cohort study. Orthop Surg. 2024;16(1):207–215.

[3] KanisJA, Odén A, McCloskeyEV, JohanssonH, WahlDA, CooperC. A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(9):2239–2256.

[4] CooperC, ColeZA, HolroydCR, Earl SC, HarveyNC, DennisonEM, et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(5):1277–1288.

[5] KaragasMR, Lu-YaoGL, BarrettJA, Beach ML, BaronJA. Heterogeneity of hip fracture: age, race, sex, and geographic patterns of femoral neck and trochanteric fractures among the US elderly. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143(7):677–682.

[6] VeroneseN, MaggiS. Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury. 2018;49(8):1458–1460.

[7] BahalooH, Enns-Bray WS, FlepsI, ArizaO, Gilchrist S, SoykaRW, et al. On the failure initiation in the proximal human femur under simulated sideways fall. Ann Biomed Eng. 2018;46(2):270–283.

[8] MusySN, MaquerG, PanyasantisukJ, WandelJ, ZyssetPK. Not only stiffness, but also yield strength of the trabecular structure determined by non-linear μFE is best predicted by bone volume fraction and fabric tensor. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;65:808–813.

[9] ZhuX, MeiJ, NiM, JiaG, LiuS, DaiY, et al. General anatomy and image reconstruction analysis of the proximal femoral trabecular structures. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019;33(10):1254–1259.

[10] MaXL, LiHT, MaJX. Biomechanical properties of principle compressive trabecular bone in proximal femur. Biomed Eng Clin Med. 2012;16(2):118–122.

[11] TobinWJ. The internal architecture of the femur and its clinical significance; the upper end. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37-a(1):57–72. passim, 88.

[12] HolzerG, von Skrbensky G, HolzerLA, PichlW. Hip fractures and the contribution of cortical versus trabecular bone to femoral neck strength. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(3):468–474.

[13] DingK, YangW, ZhuJ, ChengX, WangH, Hao D, et al. Titanium alloy cannulated screws and biodegradable magnesium alloy bionic cannulated screws for treatment of femoral neck fractures: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):511.

[14] NazarianA, MullerJ, ZurakowskiD, Müller R, SnyderBD. Densitometric, morphometric, and mechanical distributions in the human proximal femur. J Biomech. 2007;40(11):2573–2579.

[15] CuiWQ, WonYY, BaekMH, Lee DH, ChungYS, HurJH, et al. Age-and region-dependent changes in three-dimensional microstructural properties of proximal femoral trabeculae. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(11):1579–1587.

[16] NawatheS, NguyenBP, BarzanianN, Akhlaghpour H, BouxseinML, KeavenyTM. Cortical and trabecular load sharing in the human femoral neck. J Biomech. 2015;48(5):816–822.

[17] OlszynskiWP, Shawn Davison K, AdachiJD, BrownJP, Cummings SR, HanleyDA, et al. Osteoporosis in men: epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Clin Ther. 2004;26(1):15–28.

[18] BoudousqV, Goulart DM, DintenJM, de KerleauCC, ThomasE, MaresO, et al. Image resolution and magnification using a cone beam densitometer: optimizing data acquisition for hip morphometric analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(7):813–822.

[19] YoshikawaT, TurnerCH, PeacockM, Slemenda CW, WeaverCM, TeegardenD, et al. Geometric structure of the femoral neck measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res. 1994;9(7):1053–1064.

[20] JohannesdottirF, ThrallE, MullerJ, Keaveny TM, KopperdahlDL, BouxseinML. Comparison of non-invasive assessments of strength of the proximal femur. Bone. 2017;105:93–102.

[21] LinkTM, ViethV, LangenbergR, Meier N, LotterA, NewittD, et al. Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int. 2003;72(2):156–165.

[22] LotzJC, ChealEJ, HayesWC. Stress distributions within the proximal femur during gait and falls: implications for osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5(4):252–261.

[23] VerhulpE, van Rietbergen B, HuiskesR. Load distribution in the healthy and osteoporotic human proximal femur during a fall to the side. Bone. 2008;42(1):30–35.

[24] LuY, WangL, HaoY, WangZ, WangM, Ge S. Analysis of trabecular distribution of the proximal femur in patients with fragility fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:130.

[25] GreenwoodC, Clement JG, DickenAJ, EvansJP, LyburnID, MartinRM, et al. The micro-architecture of human cancellous bone from fracture neck of femur patients in relation to the structural integrity and fracture toughness of the tissue. Bone Rep. 2015;3:67–75.

[26] TarantinoU, GreggiC, CariatiI, Caldora P, CapannaR, CaponeA, et al. Bone marrow edema: overview of etiology and treatment strategies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(2):189–200.

[27] ParkinsonIH, Fazzalari NL. Interrelationships between structural parameters of cancellous bone reveal accelerated structural change at low bone volume. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(12):2200–2205.

[28] DingK, ZhuY, LiJ, YuwenP, YangW, Zhang Y, et al. Age-related changes with the trabecular bone of Ward's triangle and neck-shaft angle in the proximal femur: a radiographic study. Orthop Surg. 2023;15(12):3279–3287.

[29] MarottiG, Ferretti M, MugliaMA, PalumboC, Palazzini S. A quantitative evaluation of osteoblast-osteocyte relationships on growing endosteal surface of rabbit tibiae. Bone. 1992;13(5):363–368.

[30] DingK, ZhuY, ZhangY, Li Y, WangH, LiJ, et al. Proximal femoral bionic nail-a novel internal fixation system for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a finite element analysis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1297507.

[31] DingK, ZhuY, LiY, WangH, ChengX, Yang W, et al. Triangular support intramedullary nail: a new internal fixation innovation for treating intertrochanteric fracture and its finite element analysis. Injury. 2022;53(6):1796–1804.

[32] WangH, YangW, DingK, Zhu Y, ZhangY, RenC, et al. Biomechanical study on the stability and strain conduction of intertrochanteric fracture fixed with proximal femoral nail antirotation versus triangular supporting intramedullary nail. Int Orthop. 2022;46(2):341–350.

[33] WangY, ChenW, ZhangL, Xiong C, ZhangX, YuK, et al. Finite element analysis of proximal femur bionic nail (PFBN) compared with proximal femoral nail antirotation and InterTan in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(9):2245–2255.

[34] LiM, ZhaoK, DingK, Cui YW, ChengXD, YangWJ, et al. Titanium alloy gamma nail versus biodegradable magnesium alloy bionic gamma nail for treating intertrochanteric fractures: a finite element analysis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(5):1513–1520.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.