Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Biomech. 2016 Dec 8;49(16):3891-3900. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.10.025. Epub 2016 Oct 25.

Comparison of different material models of articular cartilage in 3D computational modeling of the knee: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).

Author information

1
Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; Medical Research Center, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital Oulu, Finland. Electronic address: olesya.klets@oulu.fi.
2
Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
3
Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; Medical Research Center, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital Oulu, Finland.
4
Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; Diagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Abstract

The intricate properties of articular cartilage and the complexity of the loading environment are some of the key challenges in developing models for biomechanical analysis of the knee joint. Fibril-reinforced poroelastic (FRPE) material models have been reported to accurately capture characteristic responses of cartilage during dynamic and static loadings. However, high computational and time costs associated with such advanced models limit applicability of FRPE models when multiple subjects need to be analyzed. If choosing simpler material models, it is important to show that they can still produce truthful predictions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare depth-dependent maximum principal stresses and strains within articular cartilage in the 3D knee joint between FRPE material models and simpler isotropic elastic (IE), isotropic poroelastic (IPE) and transversely isotropic poroelastic (TIPE) material models during simulated gait cycle. When cartilage-cartilage contact pressures were matched between the models (15% allowed difference), maximum principal stresses in the IE, IPE and TIPE models were substantially lower than those in the FRPE model (by more than 50%, TIPE model being closest to the FRPE model), and stresses occurred only in compression in the IE model. Additional simulations were performed to find material parameters for the TIPE model (due to its anisotropic nature) that would yield maximum principal stresses similar to the FRPE model. The modified homogeneous TIPE model was in a better agreement with the homogeneous FRPE model, and the average and maximum differences in maximum principal stresses throughout the depth of cartilage were 7% and 9%, respectively, in the lateral compartment and 9% and 11% in the medial compartment. This study revealed that it is possible to match simultaneously maximum principal stresses and strains of cartilage between non-fibril-reinforced and fibril-reinforced knee joint models during gait. Depending on the research question (such as analysis of fibril strain necessitates the use of fibril-reinforced material models) or clinical demand (fast simulations with simpler material models), the choice of the material model should be done carefully.

KEYWORDS:

Articular cartilage; Finite element analysis; Gait cycle; Knee joint; Magnetic resonance imaging; Material parameters

PMID:
27825602
PMCID:
PMC5653924
DOI:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.10.025
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center