Fig 1.
In vivo CT Image of a proximal femur with image noise and artifacts caused by surrounding soft tissue compared to an in vitro CT Image with better depiction of the trabecular and cortical structures.
The spatial resolution, determined at ρ50 of the modulation-transfer-function, is 230μmx230μm in vitro and 250μmx250μm in vivo.
Fig 2.
Representation of the bone mineral density distribution within the bone (left) and location of the string gauges at the femur specimen (right).
Fig 3.
Experimental setup for the fall configuration (left) and the stance configuration.
Fig 4.
Left side: Load-displacement curves from the experimental data (failure load: 4743 N) as well as simulated forces extracted from the FEA models for both stress and strain criteria.
Right side: Plotted FEA based predicted strains in both stance and fall configuration compared to experimentally measured values.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics of the subjects from the fracture group and the control group and according force calculation values derived from the FEA simulations.
Table 2.
Threshold values and property relationships adapted from the literature: Elastic property relationships for tensile and compressive testing, limit values for maximum stress and strain and threshold values used for bone mineral density.
Fig 5.
Image overlay of the macroscopic aspect of the fractured bone after destructive testing and the failed elements derived from the FE model (right).
Failed elements derived from the FEA model are marked in purple, the change in shape (dislocation after destructive testing) is illustrated as blue shadow.
Table 3.
Risk factor values calculated for each subject based on FEA simulations presented along with according in-vivo BMD (in mg/cm3) measurements of the femoral head and neck.