Biomechanical comparison of the human cadaveric pelvis with a fourth generation composite model. Issue 4 (29th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Girardi, Brandon L.; Attia, Tarik; Backstein, David; Safir, Oleg; Willett, Thomas L.; Kuzyk, Paul R.T.
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomechanics. Volume 49:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 537
• Page End: 542
• Publication Date: 2016-02-29
• Subjects: Pelvis -- Composite -- Cadaver -- Strain -- Validation; Animal mechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Mécanique animale -- Périodiques; Biomécanique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 571.4305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.050
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9290

Abstract

Abstract: The use of cadavers for orthopaedic biomechanics research is well established, but presents difficulties to researchers in terms of cost, biosafety, availability, and ease of use. High fidelity composite models of human bone have been developed for use in biomechanical studies. While several studies have utilized composite models of the human pelvis for testing orthopaedic reconstruction techniques, few biomechanical comparisons of the properties of cadaveric and composite pelves exist. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of cadaveric pelves to those of the 4th generation composite model. An Instron ElectroPuls E10000 mechanical testing machine was used to load specimens with orientation, boundary conditions and degrees of freedom that approximated those occurring during the single legged phase of walking, including hip abductor force. Each specimen was instrumented with strain gauge rosettes. Overall specimen stiffness and principal strains were calculated from the test data. Composite specimens showed significantly higher overall stiffness and slightly less overall variability between specimens (composite K =1448±54 N/m, cadaver K =832±62 N/m; p <0.0001). Strains measured at specific sites in the composite models and cadavers were similar (but did differ) only when the applied load was scaled to overall construct stiffness. This finding regarding strain distribution and the difference in overall stiffness must be accounted for when using these composite models for biomechanics research. Altering the cortical wall thickness or tuning the elastic moduli of the composite material may improve future generations of the composite model.