Finite Element Model-Computed Mechanical Behavior of Femurs with Metastatic Disease Varies Between Physiologic and Idealized Loading Simulations

Joshua E Johnson; Marc J Brouillette; Benjamin J Miller; Jessica E Goetz

doi:10.1177/11795972231166240

Finite Element Model-Computed Mechanical Behavior of Femurs with Metastatic Disease Varies Between Physiologic and Idealized Loading Simulations

Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2023 Mar 31:14:11795972231166240. doi: 10.1177/11795972231166240. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Joshua E Johnson¹, Marc J Brouillette¹, Benjamin J Miller¹, Jessica E Goetz^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
² Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Femurs affected by metastatic bone disease (MBD) frequently undergo surgery to prevent impending pathologic fractures due to clinician-perceived increases in fracture risk. Finite element (FE) models can provide more objective assessments of fracture risk. However, FE models of femurs with MBD have implemented strain- and strength-based estimates of fracture risk under a wide variety of loading configurations, and "physiologic" loading models typically simulate a single abductor force. Due to these variations, it is currently difficult to interpret mechanical fracture risk results across studies of femoral MBD. Our aims were to evaluate (1) differences in mechanical behavior between idealized loading configurations and those incorporating physiologic muscle forces, and (2) differences in the rankings of mechanical behavior between different loading configurations, in FE simulations to predict fracture risk in femurs with MBD.

Methods: We evaluated 9 different patient-specific FE loading simulations for a cohort of 54 MBD femurs: strain outcome simulations-physiologic (normal walking [NW], stair ascent [SA], stumbling), and joint contact only (NW contact force, excluding muscle forces); strength outcome simulations-physiologic (NW, SA), joint contact only, offset torsion, and sideways fall. Tensile principal strain and femur strength were compared between simulations using statistical analyses.

Results: Tensile principal strain was 26% higher (R ² = 0.719, P < .001) and femur strength was 4% lower (R ² = 0.984, P < .001) in simulations excluding physiologic muscle forces. Rankings of the mechanical predictions were correlated between the strain outcome simulations (ρ = 0.723 to 0.990, P < .001), and between strength outcome simulations (ρ = 0.524 to 0.984, P < .001).

Conclusions: Overall, simulations incorporating physiologic muscle forces affected local strain outcomes more than global strength outcomes. Absolute values of strain and strength computed using idealized (no muscle forces) and physiologic loading configurations should be used within the appropriate context when interpreting fracture risk in femurs with MBD.

Keywords: Metastatic bone disease; femur strength; finite element model; physiologic loading; strain.