Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 21;15(9):276.
doi: 10.3390/jfb15090276.

Modular Hemipelvic Prosthesis Preserves Normal Biomechanics and Showed Good Compatibility: A Finite Element Analysis

Yuanrui Luo  1 , Hongtao Sheng  1   2 , Yong Zhou  1   2 , Li Min  1   2 , Chongqi Tu  1   2 , Yi Luo  1   2
Affiliations

Modular Hemipelvic Prosthesis Preserves Normal Biomechanics and Showed Good Compatibility: A Finite Element Analysis

Yuanrui Luo et al. J Funct Biomater. .

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical compatibility of a modular hemipelvic prosthesis by comparing stress distributions between an implanted pelvis and a healthy pelvis. Finite element analysis was used to simulate bilateral standing loads on both models, analyzing critical regions such as the sacroiliac joints, iliac crest, acetabulum, and prosthesis connection points. Six models with varied displacements of the hip joint rotational center were also introduced to assess the impact of deviations on stress distribution. The implanted pelvis had a stress distribution closely matching that of the intact pelvis, indicating that the prosthesis design maintained the biomechanical integrity of the pelvis. Stress patterns in displacement models with deviations of less than 10 mm were similar to the standard model, with only minor changes in stress magnitude. However, backward, upward, and inward deviations resulted in stress concentrations, particularly in the prosthesis connection points, increasing the likelihood of mechanical failure. The modular hemipelvic prosthesis demonstrated good biomechanical compatibility with minimal impact on pelvic stress distribution, even with moderate deviations in the hip joint's rotational center; outward, forward, and downward displacements are preferable to minimize stress concentration and prevent implant failure in cases where minor deviations in the rotational center are unavoidable during surgery.

Keywords: biomechanics; center of rotation; hemipelvic prosthesis; stress distribution; three-dimensional finite element.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Composition of the modular semi-pelvic prosthesis: (A) CS spinal internal fixation device; (B) pubic branch; (C) acetabular cup; (D) fixation screws; (E) spinal internal fixation device, acetabular cup, and inner cup; (F) ischial branch; (G) assembly diagram of the hemipelvic prosthesis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A pelvic CT scan of a healthy adult.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis. (A) Pelvic cross-sectional CT scan; (B) pelvic coronal CT scan; (C) 3D reconstruction model of the normal pelvis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Solid model of pelvis and prosthesis. (A) Solid model of the normal pelvis; (B) solid model of the modular hemipelvic prosthesis.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Establishment of the solid model of the pelvic defect. (A) Schematic diagram of the extent of the pelvic resection (the blue line); (B) solid model of the pelvic defect.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Hemipelvic prosthesis standard position solid model and rotation center displacement diagram. (A) Standard model; (B) lateral and vertical displacement diagram; (C) vertical and anterior–posterior displacement diagram.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Models of different hip joint rotation centers after prosthetic replacement surgery. (A) Inward displacement model; (B) outward displacement model; (C) upward displacement model ((E) lateral view); (D) downward displacement model ((F) lateral view); (G) forward displacement model; (H) backward displacement model.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Three-dimensional finite element meshed models. (A) normal model; (B) standard model; (C) inward displacement model; (D) outward displacement model; (E) upward displacement model; (F) downward displacement model; (G) lateral view of the outward displacement model; (H) lateral view of the upward displacement model; (I) lateral view of the forward displacement model; (J) lateral view of the backward displacement model.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Schematic diagram of mechanical loading direction.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Schematic diagram of stress measurement locations in the pelvis and prosthesis model. (A) Stress measurement points in the pelvic model; (B) stress measurement points in the prosthesis model.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Stress distribution nephogram of the standing position of both feet in a normal pelvis model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Standard model finite element stress distribution nephogram (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the inward displacement model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the outward displacement model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 15
Figure 15
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the backward model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 16
Figure 16
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the forward model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 17
Figure 17
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the upward model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
Figure 18
Figure 18
Finite element stress distribution nephogram of the downward model (e5 = × 105, e6 = × 106, e7 = × 107).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brummund M.K., Sgard F., Petit Y., Laville F. Three-dimensional finite element modeling of the human external ear: Simulation study of the bone conduction occlusion effect. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2014;135:1433–1444. doi: 10.1121/1.4864484. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmitt J., Lengsfeld M., Alter P., Leppek R. Use of voxel-oriented femur models for stress analysis. Generation, calculation and validation of CT-based FEM models. Biomed. Tech. 1995;40:175–181. doi: 10.1515/bmte.1995.40.6.175. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheung J.T., Zhang M., Leung A.K., Fan Y.B. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the foot during standing--a material sensitivity study. J. Biomech. 2005;38:1045–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stegaroiu R., Kusakari H., Nishiyama S., Miyakawa O. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1998;13:781–790. - PubMed
    1. Xin P., Nie P., Jiang B., Deng S., Hu G., Shen S.G. Material assignment in finite element modeling: Heterogeneous properties of the mandibular bone. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2013;24:405–410. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31827ff137. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources