Evaluation of a short glass fibre-reinforced tube as a model for cat femur for biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants

Summary

The biomechanical testing of tubes made of third generation short glass fibre-reinforced (SGFR) material approximating cat femurs was performed in order to determine their suitability as cat femur surrogates for the biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants. The tubes were tested in compression, three-point bending, notch testing, and screw pullout. Thin walled (B1-tubes) had a 13% lower maximum load to failure, a 19% higher maximum strength and a 13% lower elastic modulus compared to cat femurs tested in compression. B1-tubes maximum load to failure in threepoint bending and screw pullout strength were considerably lower compared to cat femurs (29% and 63%, respectively). Notch testing was not performed on B1-tubes due to low bending strength. Thicker walled (B2-tubes) had a 23% higher maximum load to failure, a 10% higher maximum strength and a 21% lower elastic modulus compared to cat femurs tested in compression. The comparison of B2-tubes and cat femurs in three-point bending revealed a 7% increase in maximum load to failure for the B2-tubes. Drilled B2-tubes (notch testing) were weaker with a 30% lower load to failure compared to cat femurs. A screw pullout comparison of B2-tubes and cat femurs revealed a 2% increase in maximum load to failure for the B2-tubes. These tubes were intended to provide a model as a suitable surrogate for cat femurs for testing the bending strength of various orthopaedic constructs involving plates and screws. Testing revealed that third generation SGFR tubes were not suitable for these purposes and emphasizes the need to carefully evaluate the suitability of any model.

Keywords

Short glass fibre-reinforced material - biomechanical testing - compression - notch testing - three-point bending - Cat femur

• References

• 1 An YH. Mechanical properties of bone.. In: Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. An YA, Draughn RA (eds). London: CRC Press; 2000: 41-63.
• 2 Simon BR, Woo SL-Y, Stanley GM. et al. Evaluation of one-, two-, and three-dimensional finite element and experimental models of internal fixation plates.. J Biomech 1977; 10: 79.
• 3 Briggs BT, Chao EY. The mechanical performance of the standard Hoffmann-Vidal external fixation apparatus.. J Bone Joint Surg 1982; 64: 566.
• 4 Behrens F, Johnson WD, Koch TW. Bending stiffness of unilateral and bilateral fixator frames.. Clin Orthop 1983; 178: 103.
• 5 Beardsley CL, Heiner AD, Brandser EA. et al. High density polyetherurethane foam as a fragmentation and radiographic surrogate for cortical bone.. Iowa Orthop J 2000; 20: 24.
• 6 Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, Cappello A. et al. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models.. J Biomech 1996; 29: 525.
• 7 Hale JE, Anderson DD, Johnson GA. A polyurethane foam model for characterizing suture pull through properties in bone.. Proc American Soc Biomech 1999; 23: 288.
• 8 Chapman JR, Harrington RM, Lee KM. et al. Factors affecting screw pullout.. J Biomech Eng 1996; 118: 391.
• 9 Beals N. Evaluation of a composite Sawbones Femur Model, Research Report ML-87-25, Richards Medical Company, Memphis, TN 1987
• 10 Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia.. J. Biomech 2000; 33: 279.
• 11 Gibson TWGG, Moens NMM, Runciman RJ. et al. The biomechanical properties of the feline femur.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2008 (In print).
• 12 Frachter AM, Holmberg DL. Mechanical analysis of the veterinary cuttable plate.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1991; 3: 116.
• 13 Carlson KR, Kraus KH, Kowaleski MP. Nonlinear stiffness profiles of external fixators constructed with composite rods.. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 700.
• 14 White DT, Bronson DG, Welch RD. A mechanical comparison of veterinary linear external fixation systems.. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 507.
• 15 Neat BC, Kowaleski MP, Litsky AS. et al. Mechanical evaluation of pin and tension-band wire factors in an olecranon osteotomy model.. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 398.
• 16 Schulz KS. Application of arthroplasty principles to canine cemented total hip replacement.. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 578.
• 17 Hammel SP, Pluhar GE, Novo RE. et al. Fatigue analysis of plates used for fracture stabilization in small dogs and cats.. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 573.
• 18 Baumeister T, Avallone EA. Baumeister III T. Mark’s standard handbook for mechanical engineers. 8^th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978
• 19 Heiner AD, Brown TD. Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias.. J Biomech 2001; 34: 773.
• 20 Elfick AP, Bedi G, Port A. et al. Design and validation of a surrogate humerus for biomechanical testing.. J Biomech 2002; 35: 533.
• 21 Beer FP, Johnston ER, DeWolf JT. Mechanics of materials. Third edition in SI units. McGraw-Hill, 3rd ed. 2004; pp 99.
• 22 Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Städele H. et al. Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws. J Orthop Res. 2004; 22: 1237-1242.
• 23 Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Morlock MM. et al. Mechanical behaviour of screws in normal and osteoporotic bone, Osteoporos Int. 2005; 16: S107-S111.
• 24 Bonfield W, Dattia PK. Fracture toughness of compact bone.. J Biomech 1976; 9: 131-134.
• 25 Brooks DB, Burstein AH, Frankel VH. The biomechanics of torsional fractures. The stress concentration effect of a drill hole.. J Bone Joint Surg 1970; 52-A: 507-514.
• 26 Reminger AR, Miclau T, Lindsey RW. The torsional strength of bones with residual screw holes from plates with unicortical and bicortical purchase.. Clin Biomech 1997; 12-1: 71-73.
• 27 Burstein AH, Currey J, Frankel VH. et al. Bone strength: The effect of screw holes.. J Bone Joint Surg 1972; 54-A: 1143-1156.
• 28 Chong ACM, Miller F, Buxton M. et al. Fracture toughness and fatigue crack propagation rate of short fibre reinforced epoxy composites for analogue cortical bone.. J Biomech Eng 2007; 129: 487-493.