Fig 1.
Finite element models with transverse subtrochanteric fracture of different fracture levels.
Table 1.
Material properties applied for the finite element model analysis.
Fig 2.
Loading condition of the analysis model; Hip joint force (FH), 2013.9 N (body weight X 300%); Abductor muscle force, 671.3 N (body weight X 100%).
Fig 3.
Stress distribution around the cortical bone and implant of finite element models using 1 (a, b) and 2 (c, d) distal screw fixation in 1 mm fracture gap, osteoporotic bone.
The enlarged image portion represents the point at which the peak stress was observed.
Fig 4.
Stress distribution around the cortical bone and implant of finite element models using 1 (a, b) and 2 (c, d) distal screw fixation in 2 mm fracture gap, osteoporotic bone.
The enlarged image portion represents the point at which the peak stress was observed.
Fig 5.
Stress distribution around the cortical bone and implant of finite element models using 1 (a, b) and 2 (c, d) distal screw fixation in 3 mm fracture gap, osteoporotic bone.
The enlarged image portion represents the point at which the peak stress was observed.
Table 2.
Summary of Peak von Mises stress in finite element models according to fracture gap.