Structural Properties of a Novel Design of Composite Analogue Humeri Models

Background Mechanical analogue composite bone models have been used as cadaveric bone substitutes in a wide variety of biomechanical tests. The objective of this study was to compare the structural properties of two types (Third- and Fourth-Generation) of commercially available composite analogue humeri. Methods Eighteen of each generation composite analogue humeri were evaluated for flexural rigidity, torsional rigidity, and failure strength. Three tests were performed: medial–lateral four-point bending, anterior–posterior four-point bending, and external rotational torque. Results The Fourth-Generation analogue humeri performed more closely to the biological average with respect to failure strength, flexural rigidity, and torsional stiffness when compared to the Third-Generation humeri. Both the Third- and Fourth-Generation analogues were within the range of published human bone values. There was a statistically significant difference in strength in all modes of testing between the Fourth-Generation humeri and the Third-Generation humeri. Conclusion These composite analogue humeri are ideal for standardization in biomechanical analyses. The advantage of these humeri is that their variability is significantly lower than that of cadaveric specimens for all loading regimens. The widely varying results observed when comparing composite analogue humeri to cadaveric humeri might be derived from the use of different ranges of applied load, varied test methodologies, and diverse methods of computing the stiffness. Mechanical validation of whole Fourth-Generation humeri bone models would be an appropriate follow-up to this study with a direct comparison to cadaveric humeri. Clinical relevance This study validated and advanced our overall understanding of the capacity of composite analogue humeri to model the structural properties of human bone.

[1]  E. Chao,et al.  Metastatic diaphyseal fractures of the shaft of the humerus. The structural strength evaluation of a new method of treatment with a segmental defect prosthesis. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  C H Turner,et al.  Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. , 1993, Bone.

[3]  M. Zimmerman,et al.  A Biomechanical Analysis of Four Humeral Fracture Fixation Systems , 1994, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[4]  J. Kellam,et al.  Comparison of Torsional Strength of Humeral Intramedullary Nailing: A Cadaveric Study , 1994, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[5]  E. Chao,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Antegrade and Retrograde Nailing of Humeral Shaft Fracture , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  A. Cappello,et al.  Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  T D Brown,et al.  Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  Richard J Hawkins,et al.  Humeral Torque in Professional Baseball Pitchers , 2004, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  E. Friis,et al.  Fracture toughness and fatigue crack propagation rate of short fiber reinforced epoxy composites for analogue cortical bone. , 2007, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[10]  E. Friis,et al.  Fatigue Performance of Composite Analogue Femur Constructs under High Activity Loading , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.