Association of atypical femoral fracture location and lower limb mechanical axis: a computed tomography-based finite element analysis

Summary Atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) are categorized as low-energy fractures of the femoral shaft or subtrochanteric region. The use of computed tomography-based finite element analysis demonstrated that the femoral weakest point against tensile stress coincided with AFF location, which was det...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Osteoporosis international 2022-06, Vol.33 (6), p.1285-1293
Main Authors: Hwang, Donghwan, Kim, Chul-Ho, Lee, Yongkoo, Kim, Ji Wan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Computed tomography
Endocrinology
Female
Femoral Fractures - diagnostic imaging
Femur
Femur - diagnostic imaging
Finite Element Analysis
Finite element method
Humans
Knee
Lower Extremity
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Original Article
Orthopedics
Retrospective Studies
Rheumatology
Tomography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) are categorized as low-energy fractures of the femoral shaft or subtrochanteric region. The use of computed tomography-based finite element analysis demonstrated that the femoral weakest point against tensile stress coincided with AFF location, which was determined by the lower limb axis and femoral bowing. Introduction This study aimed to assess the relationship between the femoral weakest point against tensile stress and the lower limb axis and geometry, including femoral bowing, using a computed tomography (CT)-based finite element analysis (FEA) model. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 19 patients with AFFs and analyzed their CT images of the contralateral intact femur. We performed FEA to find the maximum principal stress (MPS) and maximal tensile stress loading area (femoral weakest point, FWP) of each patient and matched the FWP with the real location of AFF. We applied mechanical axes differently, as neutral, varus, and valgus, in the FEA model, when we analyzed the change in MPS and FWP based on lower limb alignment. We compared the degree of agreement between the real fracture location and FWP before and after knee mechanical axis adjustment. Results The average participant age was 75.9 (range, 61–87) years, and all participants were women. In the 19 patients included, we observed 20 and 7 shaft and subtrochanteric AFFs, respectively. The average mechanical axis at the knee joint level was 22.6 mm (range, 0–70 mm) of the varus. All the patients showed an increasing trend of MPS and a distal movement of FWP when the mechanical axis of the knee was applied from the valgus to varus alignment. The root mean square errors between the FWP and real fracture location were 14.58% and 10.87% before and after adjustment, respectively, implying that the degree of agreement was better in patients who underwent mechanical adjustment. Conclusion The use of CT/FEA demonstrated that the FWP against tensile stress coincided with AFF location, which was determined by the lower limb axis and femoral bowing.
ISSN:0937-941X
1433-2965
DOI:10.1007/s00198-021-06173-1