Biomechanical and finite element study of drilling sites for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation

Bang Dou; Fangfang Zhang; Ming Ni; Yahui Dai; Zhiyuan Wang; Tao Qin; Wenqian Ma; Wei Zhu; Jiong Mei; Bang Dou; Fangfang Zhang; Ming Ni; Yahui Dai; Zhiyuan Wang; Tao Qin; Wenqian Ma; Wei Zhu; Jiong Mei

doi:10.3934/mbe.2019392

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2019, Volume 16, Issue 6: 7808-7828. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019392

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Biomechanical and finite element study of drilling sites for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation

1.
Department of Orthopedics, Songjiang District Central Hospital, Shanghai 201600, China
2.
Department of Orthopedics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China
3.
Department of Orthopedics, Pudong New Area People’s Hospital, Shanghai 201200, China
4.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai 200233, China

Received: 21 March 2019 Accepted: 18 August 2019 Published: 27 August 2019

ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of drilling sites for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation.

MethodsTwelve paired formalin-fixed human cadaveric femora were grouped randomly into 2 groups of 6 pairs each, which were group 1 and group 2, and one of each pair of femora was grouped randomly to drill an oval-shaped hole in the anterior femoral neck, and the contralateral femur was assigned to drill an oval-shaped hole in the lateral of the proximal femur. Group 1 femora were simulated the operation of curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation, and group 2 femora were simulated the operation of curettage. Besides, finite element models corresponding to mechanical testing were simulated according to one of the twelve femora, then finite element analysis were done. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis, with a p value < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

ResultsThe simulated operation of curettage decreased the axial stiffness and torsional stiffness of the intact proximal femur significantly, while there was no statistical difference on the degree of the decline between different drilling sites. Although the simulated operation of bone-grafting and internal fixation in different drilling sites increased the axial stiffness and torsional stiffness, only in the case of implanting bones and internal fixation for the lateral cortical drilled hole increased the axial stiffness greatly and made a statistical difference, even more stiff than the intact proximal femur model.

ConclusionCompared with drilling in the anterior femoral neck, a bigger stability could be obtained after drilling in the lateral proximal femur for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation.
- biomechanical,
- finite element analysis,
- drilling site,
- benign lesion,
- femoral head and neck
Citation: Bang Dou, Fangfang Zhang, Ming Ni, Yahui Dai, Zhiyuan Wang, Tao Qin, Wenqian Ma, Wei Zhu, Jiong Mei. Biomechanical and finite element study of drilling sites for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 7808-7828. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019392

Related Papers:

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of drilling sites for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation.

MethodsTwelve paired formalin-fixed human cadaveric femora were grouped randomly into 2 groups of 6 pairs each, which were group 1 and group 2, and one of each pair of femora was grouped randomly to drill an oval-shaped hole in the anterior femoral neck, and the contralateral femur was assigned to drill an oval-shaped hole in the lateral of the proximal femur. Group 1 femora were simulated the operation of curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation, and group 2 femora were simulated the operation of curettage. Besides, finite element models corresponding to mechanical testing were simulated according to one of the twelve femora, then finite element analysis were done. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis, with a p value < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

ResultsThe simulated operation of curettage decreased the axial stiffness and torsional stiffness of the intact proximal femur significantly, while there was no statistical difference on the degree of the decline between different drilling sites. Although the simulated operation of bone-grafting and internal fixation in different drilling sites increased the axial stiffness and torsional stiffness, only in the case of implanting bones and internal fixation for the lateral cortical drilled hole increased the axial stiffness greatly and made a statistical difference, even more stiff than the intact proximal femur model.

ConclusionCompared with drilling in the anterior femoral neck, a bigger stability could be obtained after drilling in the lateral proximal femur for benign lesions in femoral head and neck with curettage, bone-grafting and internal fixation.

References

[1]	H. N. Shih, C. Y. Cheng, Y. J. Chen, et al., Treatment of the femoral neck and trochanteric benign lesions, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 328 (1996), 220–226.
[2]	P. J. Rubin, P. F. Leyvraz, J. M. Aubaniac, et al., The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 74 (1992), 28–32.
[3]	O. Husmann, P. J. Rubin, P. F. Leyvraz, et al., Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur, J. Arthroplasty, 12 (1997), 444–450.
[4]	P. A. Toogood, A. Skalak and D. R. Cooperman, Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 467 (2009), 876–885.
[5]	W. J. Tobin, The internal architecture of the femur and its clinical significance; the upper end, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 37 (1955), 57–72.
[6]	M. Harty, The calcar femorale and the femoral neck, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 39 (1957), 625–630.
[7]	H. J. Bigelow, The true neck of the femur: Its structure and pathology, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 344 (1997), 4–7.
[8]	J. Mei, M. Ni, G. Wang, et al., Number and distribution of nutrient foramina within the femoral neck and their relationship to the retinacula of Weitbrecht: An anatomical study, Anat. Sci. Int., 92 (2017), 91–97.
[9]	B. Dou, J. Mei, Z. Wang, et al., Histological Observation of the Retinacula of Weitbrecht and Its Clinical Significance: A cadaveric study, Indian J. Orthop., 52 (2018), 202–208.
[10]	Y. C. Hu, D. X. Lun and S. K. Zhao, Combined anterior and lateral approaches for bone tumors of the femoral neck and head, Orthopedics, 35 (2012), 628–634.
[11]	M. N. Smith-peterson, Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 31 (1949), 40–46.
[12]	M. N. Smith-peterson, A new supra-articular subperiosteal approach to hip joint, Am. J. Orthop. Surg., 15 (1917), 592–595.
[13]	H. S. Cho, I. H. Park, I. Han, et al., Giant cell tumor of the femoral head and neck: Result of intralesional curettage, Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg., 130 (2010), 1329–1333.
[14]	T. Nakamura, A. Matsumine, K. Asanuma, et al., Treatment of the benign bone tumors including femoral neck lesion using compression hip screw and synthetic bone graft, SICOT J., 26 (2015), 1: 15.
[15]	D.P. Strong, R. J. Grimer, S. R. Carter, et al., Chondroblastoma of the femoral head: management and outcome, Int. Orthop., 34 (2010), 413–417.
[16]	M. S. Thompson and J. S. Woodward, The use of the arthroscope an adjunct in the resection of a chondroblastoma of the femoral head, Arthroscopy, 11 (1995), 106–111.
[17]	S. J. Stricker, Extraarticular endoscopic excision of femoral head chondroblastoma, J. Pediatr. Orthop., 15 (1995), 578–581.
[18]	R. J. Torres-Eguía, C. A. Colmenero Rolón, S. Arauz De Robles, et al., Epiphyseal femoral tumour resection under intraosseous endoscopic control, Hip Int., 20(S7) (2010): 32–35.
[19]	L. C. Derikx, J. B. van Aken, D. Janssen, et al., The assessment of the risk of fracture in femora with metastatic lesions: Comparing case-specific finite element analyses with predictions by clinical experts, J. Bone Joint Surg., 94B (2012), 1135–1142.
[20]	M. Papini, R. Zdero, E. H. Schemitsch, et al., The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs, J. Biomech. Eng., 129 (2007), 12–19.
[21]	E. Benca, A. Reisinger and J. M. Patsch, Effect of simulated metastatic lesions on the biomechanical behavior of the proximal femur, J. Orthop. Res., 35 (2017), 2407–2414.
[22]	R. E. Leggon, R. W. Lindsey and M. M. Panjabi, Strength reduction and the effects of treatment of long bones with diaphyseal defects involving 50% of the cortex, J. Orthop. Res., 6 (1988), 540–546.
[23]	A. D. Heiner and T. D. Brown, Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias, J. Biomech., 34 (2001), 773–781.
[24]	M. Martens, R. Van Audekercke, P. De Meester, et al., The mechanical characteristics of the long bones of the lower extremity in torsional loading, J. Biomech., 13 (1980), 667–676.
[25]	A. D. Heiner, Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias, J. Biomech., 41 (2008), 3282–3284.
[26]	T. M. Tupis, G. T. Altman, D. T. Altman, et al., Femoral bone strains during antegrade nailing: a comparison of two entry points with identical nails using finite element analysis, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 27 (2012), 354–359.
[27]	S. Prakash and C. R. Ethier, Requirements for mesh resolution in 3D computational hemodynamics, J. Biomech. Eng., 123 (2001), 134–144.
[28]	P. Das Neves Borges, A. E. Forte, T. L. Vincent, et al., Rapid, automated imaging of mouse articular cartilage by micro-CT for early detection of osteoarthritis and finite element modelling of joint mechanics, Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 22 (2014), 1419–1428.
[29]	Z. Cai, Z. Li, J. Dong, et al., A study on protective performance of bullet-proof helmet under impact loading, J. Vibroengineering, 18 (2016), 2495–2507.
[30]	J. Coquim, J. Clemenzi, M. Salahi, et al., Biomechanical Analysis Using FEA and Experiments of Metal Plate and Bone Strut Repair of a Femur Midshaft Segmental Defect, Biomed. Res. Int., 2018 (2018), 4650308.
[31]	Z. Cai, Z. Li, L. Wang, et al., A three-dimensional finite element modelling of human chest injury following front or side impact loading, J. Vibroengineering, 18 (2016), 539–550.
[32]	G. E. Alexande, S. Gutierrez, A. Nayak, et al., Biomechanical model of a high risk impending pathologic fracture of the femur: Lesion creation based on clinically implemented scoring systems, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 28 (2013), 408–414.
[33]	G. J. Zhang, J. Yang, F. J. Guan, et al., Quantifying the Effects of Formalin Fixation on the Mechanical Properties of Cortical Bone Using Beam Theory and Optimization Methodology With Specimen-Specific Finite Element Models, J. Biomech. Eng., 138 (2016), 9.
[34]	B. van Rietbergen, H. Weinans, R. Huiskes, et al., A New Method to Determine the Trabecular Bone Elastic Properties and Loading Using Micromechanical Finite Elemen Models, J. Biomech., 28 (1995), 69–81.
[35]	M. L. Audu and D. T. Davy, The influence of muscle model complexity in musculoskeletal motion modeling, J. Biomech. Eng., 107 (1985), 147–157.
[36]	S. Tada, R. Stegaroiu, E. Kitamura, et al., Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis, Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants, 18 (2003), 357–368.
[37]	E. Kobayashi, T. J. Wang, H. Doi, et al., Mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy dental castings, J. Mater Sci. Mater Med., 9 (1998), 567–574.
[38]	M. Ni, D. W. C. Wong, J. Mei, et al., Biomechanical comparison of locking plate and crossing metallic and absorbable screws fixations for intra-articular calcaneal fractures, Sci. China Life Sci., 59 (2016), 958–964.
[39]	H. H. Wang, K. Wang, Z. Deng, et al., Effects of facet joint degeneration on stress alterations in cervical spine C5–C6: A finite element analysis, Math. Bio. Eng., 16 (2019), 7447–7457.
[40]	M. Ni, X. H. Weng, J. Mei, et al., Primary stability of absorbable screw fixation for intra-articular calcaneal fractures: A finite element analysis, J. Med. Biol. Eng., 35 (2015), 236–241.
[41]	M. Ni, W. Niu, D. W Wong, et al., Finite element analysis of locking plate and two types of intramedullary nails for treating mid-shaft clavicle fractures, Injury, 47 (2016), 1618–1623.
[42]	G. Sharma, K. K. Gn, K. Khatri, et al., Morphology of the posteromedial fragment in pertrochanteric fractures: a three-dimensional computed tomography analysis, Injury, 48 (2017), 419–431.
[43]	M. Martens, R. van Audekercke, P. de Meester, et al., The Mechanical Characteristics of the Long Bones of the Lower Extremity in Torsional Loading, J. Biomech., 13 (1980), 667–676.
[44]	A. D. Heiner and T. D. Brown, Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias, J. Biomech., 34 (2001), 773–781.
[45]	R. Sivasundaram, S. Shah and S. Ahmadi, The biomechanical effect of proximal tumor defect location on femur pathological fractures, J. Orthop. Trauma, 27 (2013), 174–180.
[46]	J. A. Hipp, D. S. Springfield and W. C. Hayes, Predicting pathologic fracture risk in the management of metastatic bone defects, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 312 (1995), 120–135.
[47]	B. Çaypınar, B. Erol, M. Topkar, et al., Biomechanical determination of the relationship between femoral neck lesion size and the risk of pathological fracture, Hip Int., 26 (2016), 158–163.
[48]	D. F. Amanatullah, J. C. Williams, D. P. Fyhrie, et al., Torsional properties of distal femoral cortical defects, Orthopedics, 37 (2014), 158–162.
[49]	B. Çaypınar, B. Erol, M. Topkar, et al., Biomechanical determination of the relationship between femoral neck lesion size and the risk of pathological fracture, Hip Int., 26 (2016), 158–163.
[50]	T. S. Kaneko, M. R. Pejcic, J. Tehranzadeh, et al., Relationships between material properties and CT scan data of cortical bone with and without metastatic lesions, Med. Eng. Phys., 25 (2003), 445–454.
[51]	J. Keene, D. Sellinger, A. McBeath, et al., Metastatic breast cancer in the femur a search for the lesion at risk of fracture, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 203 (1986), 282–288.
[52]	H. Mirels, Metastatic disease in long bones a proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 249 (1989), 256–264.
[53]	T. S. Kaneko, H. B. Skinner and J. H. Keyak, Lytic lesions in the femoral neck: Importance of location and evaluation of a novel minimally invasive repair technique, J. Orthop. Res., 26 (2008), 1127–1132.
[54]	M. A. Rahman, A. M. El Masry and S. I. Azmy, Review of 16 cases of aneurysmal bone cyst in the proximal femur treated by extended curettage and cryosurgery with reconstruction using autogenous nonvascularized fibula graft, J. Orthop. Surg. (Hong Kong), 26 (2018), 1–6.
[55]	H. Liu, X. Fang, Z. Yu, et al., Surgical strategy for benign lesions in proximal femur: Internal fixation or endoprosthetic replacement, Int. Orthop., 42 ( 2018), 2691–2698.
[56]	B. Wilke, M. Houdek, R. R. Rao, et al., Treatment of Unicameral Bone Cysts of the Proximal Femur With Internal Fixation Lessens the Risk of Additional Surgery, Orthopedics, 40 (2017), 862–867.
[57]	D. Dragomir-Daescu, J. Op Den Buijs, S. McEligot, et al., Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip, Ann. Biomed. Eng., 39 (2011), 742–55.
[58]	Z. Yosibash, R. Plitman Mayo, G. Dahan, et al., Predicting the stiffness and strength of human femurs with real metastatic tumors, Bone, 69 (2014), 180–190.
[59]	D. Michaeli, K. Inoue, W. Hayes, et al., Density predicts the activity-dependent failure load of proximal femora with defects, Skeletal Radiol., 28 (1999), 90–95.
[60]	J. H. Keyak, S. A. Rossi, K. A. Jones, et al., Prediction of fracture location in the proximal femur using finite element models, Med. Eng. Phys., 23 (2001), 657–664.
[61]	S. Martelli, F. Taddei, E. Varini, et al., Accuracy of subject specific finite-element models of long bones from CT data: An in vitro study, Proc. ICCB II, 1 (2005), 251–265.
[62]	E. Schileo, F. Taddei, A. Malandrino, et al., Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones, J. Biomech., 40 (2007), 2982–2989.
[63]	N. Trabelsi, Z. Yosibash and C. Milgrom, Validation of subject-specific automated\hboxp-FE analysis of the proximal femur, J. Biomech., 42 (2009), 234–241.
[64]	Z. Yosibash, D. Tal and N. Trabelsi, Predicting the yield of the proximal femur using high-order finite-element analysis with inhomogeneous orthotropic material properties, Philos. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 368 (2010), 2707–2723.
[65]	P. K. Zysset, E. Dall'Ara, P. Varga, et al., Finite element analysis for prediction of bone strength, Bonekey Rep., 2 (2013), 386.
[66]	R. S. Avedian, T. Chen, D. Lindsey, et al., Antirotation Pins Improve Stability of the Compress Limb Salvage Implant: A Biomechanical Study, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 472 (2014), 3982–3986.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)