Fig 1.
Process followed for the reconstruction and final FE analysis starting with the medical images.
(A) Straight stem, (B) offset stem without supplement, (C) offset stem with supplement, (D) sleeves with stem and (E) stemless sleeves.
Fig 2.
Boundary and loading conditions (M: medial and L: lateral).
Table 1.
Values of applied forces (N) at the tibia (with permission of Pérez et al., 2010).
Fig 3.
Results obtained from the comparison of HU based on CT data and bone apparent density distribution predicted using the bone remodeling model.
(A) Bone apparent density distribution predicted using the bone remodeling model. (B) Percentage of bone volume with a certain error level for four different density ranges in the tibia (with permission of Pérez et al., 2010).
Fig 4.
Axial cross-sectional views of the bone density distribution (gr/cm3) at 10, 40, 80 and 120 mm from the top of the tibial tray, 400 days after analysis.
(A) Before implantation. After prosthesis implantation: (B) straight stem, (C) offset stem with supplement, (D) offset stem without supplement, (E) sleeves with stem, and (F) stemless sleeves. (See the various prosthesis models in Fig 1).
Fig 5.
Bone mineral density ratio variation in different regions of interest (ROIs).
Fig 6.
Von Mises stress distribution for each prosthesis at the end of the simulation: (A) straight stem, (B) offset stem with supplement, (C) offset stem without supplement, (D) sleeves with stem, and (E) stemless sleeves.
Table 2.
Maximum values of Von Mises stress of the prostheses.