An analysis of the theories in biomechanics

• Autorzy: Prendergast P. J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The nature of the systems commonly thought of as coming into the remit of biomechanics range from 'mechanical' systems (concerned with the design of medical devices, such as implants) to 'mechanobiological' systems (concerned with the response of tissues, cells, and biomolecules to mechanical forces). In each case, a biomechanical system is characterised by the interaction of biological and physical elements. Like any other science, biomechanics advances by the development of theories and the testing of these theories by observation and experiment. The purpose of this paper is to analyse contemporary biomechanics research by providing a critique of the development of biomechanical theories. Only two are considered in detail: (i) the theory of hip prosthesis failure and (ii) the theory of adaptive-bone remodelling. In both cases, specific basic statements, or hypotheses, have been proposed and tested using computational and experimental methods. In the case of hip implants, there have been definite advances in the sense that many hypotheses that could have been rejected continue to be upheld despite severe testing. On the other hand, in the case of adaptive-bone remodelling where the dominant theory is 'adaptive elasticity', the tests of the theory have either been too lenient or they have smuggled in new assumptions that fundamentally alter it. The problems of testing adaptive-elasticity theory are described, and comparison is made with damage-based bone remodelling theories.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

prosthesis design; bone remodelling; machanobiology

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN
• Czasopismo: Engineering Transactions
• Rocznik: 2001
• Tom: Vol.49, iss.2/3
• Strony: 117--133
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 57 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Prendergast P. J.

• University of Dublin, Department of Mechanical Engineering Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Bibliografia

• 1. C. SINGER, A history of scientific ideas, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1959.
• 2. M. C. H. van der MEULEN and P. J. PRENDERGAST, Skeletal structure: synthesis of mechanics and biology, [In:] Vision of the future: chemistry and life science, J. M. T. THOMPSON [Ed.], Cambridge University Press, 113-125, 2001.
• 4. A. D. WOLFF, Osteoporosis. A clinical guide, Martin Dunitz, London, 2nd Edn., 1998.
• 5. ANON, The bone and joint decade. 2000-2010 for prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, Acta Orthopaedica Scandanavica, 69, Suppl. 281, 1998.
• 6. R. M. NEREM, Lecture delivered at joint ASME/ AIChE/ ASCE Summer Bioengineering Conference, Oregon, USA, 11-15 June, 1997.
• 7. K. R. POPPER, Logik der Forschung, Wein 1935. [Translated as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London 1959 (page numbers cited in this article refer to the reprint published by Routelege, London 2000)].
• 8. K. R. POPPER, ibid, pp. 59-60.
• 9. K. R. POPPER, ibid, p. 41.
• 10. J. WOLFF, Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen, Hirschwald, Berlin 1892. [Translated as: The law of bone remodelling], Springer, Berlin 1986.
• 11. K. R. POPPER, ibid, p. 99.
• 12. S. C. COWIN, The false premise of Wolff's law, Forma, 12, 247-262, 1997.
• 13. J. D. CURREY, Was Wolff correct?, Forma, 12, 263-266, 1997.
• 14. P. J. PRENDERGAST, Bone prostheses and implants [In:] Bone Mechanics Handbook, S. C. COWIN, [Ed.], CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2001, Chapter 35.
• 15. L. CRISTOFOLINI, A critical analysis of stress shielding evaluation of hip prostheses, Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 25, 409-483, 1997.
• 16. P. J. PRENDERGAST, Finite element models in tissue mechanics and orthopaedic implant design, Clinical Biomechanics, 12, 343-366, 1997.
• 17. D. W. MURRAY, A. J. CARR, C. J. BULSTRODE, Which primary total hip replacement?, J. of Bone and Joint Surgery, 77B, 520-527, 1995.
• 18. R. HUISKES, Failed innovation in total hip replacement: diagnosis and proposals for a cure, Acta Orthopaedica Scandanavica, 64, 699-716, 1993.
• 19. T. A. GRUEN, G. M. McNEICE and H. C. AMSTUTZ, 'Modes of failure' of cemented stem­type femoral components, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 141, 17-27, 1979.
• 20. J. L. FowLER, G. A. GIE, A. J. C. LEE and R. S.M. LING, Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970, Orthopaedic Clinics of North America, 19, 477-489, 1988.
• 21. C. A. ENGH, T. F. McGOVERN, J.D. BOBYN and W. H. HARRIS, A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone remodelling after cementless total hip arthroplasty, J. of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74A, 1009-1020, 1992.
• 22. N. VERDONSCHOT and R. HUISKES, A combination of continuum damage mechanics and the finite element method to analyse acrylic cement cracking around implants, [In:] 2nd Inter­ national Symposium on Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering Swansea, Books and Journals International, J. MIDDLETON, [Ed.], 25-33, 1996.
• 23. B. A. 0. McCORMACK and P. J. PRENDERGAST, Microdamage accumulation in the cement layer of hip replacements under flexural loading, J. of Biomechanics, 32, 467-475, 1999.
• 24. J. STOLK, N. VERDONSCHOT and R. HUISKES, FE simulation of damage accumulation in cement around a prosthetic hip stem, [In:] Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Society of Biomechanics. Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland: Dublin, 2000, P. J. PRENDERGAST, T. C. LEE and A. J. CARR [Eds.]), p. 112.
• 25. S. MAHER and P. J. PRENDERGAST, Migration, rate of migration, and inducible displace­ ment correlate with femoral hip implant loosening, Transactions of the Orthopaedic Re­ search Society, p. 1054, 2001.
• 26. K. DOLINSKI, Fatigue damage and reliability assessment of cemented hip prostheses, J. of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 37, 506-518, 1999.
• 27. H. MALCHAU and P. HERBERTS, Prognosis of total hip replacement. Revision and re-revision in THR, a revision-risk study of 11,8.359 primary operations, Scientific Exhibit presented at the 65th annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1998.
• 28. S. A. MAHER, Design and development of a pre-clinical test for cemented hip replacement, PhD Thesis, University of Dublin, 2000.
• 29. P. J. PRENDERGAST and S. A. MAHER, Issues in the pre-clinical testing of human implants, J. of Materials Processing Technology, 112, 2001 (in press).
• 30. H. ROESLER, A history of some fundamental concepts in bone biomechanics, J. of Biomechanics, 20, 1025-1034, 1987.
• 31. S. C. COWIN and D. H. HEGEDUS, Bone remodelling I: theory of adaptive elasticity, J. of Elasticity, 6, 313-326, 1976.
• 32. D. H. HEGEDUS and S. C. COWIN, Bone remodelling II: small strain adaptive elasticity, J. of Elasticity, 6, 337-352, 1976.
• 33. S. C. COWIN and W. C. van BUSKIRK, Internal bone remodelling induced by a medullary pin, J. of Biomechanics, 11, 269-275, 1978.
• 34. S. C. COWIN and W. C. van BUSKIRK, Surface bone remodelling induced by a medullary pin, J. of Biomechanics, 12, 269-276, 1979.
• 35. K. FIROOZBAKHSH and S. C. COWIN, Devolution of inhomogenieties in bone structure: predictions of adaptive elasticity theory, J. of Biomechanical Engineering, 102, 287-293, 1980.
• 36. S. C. COWIN and K. FIROOZBAKHSH, Bone remodelling of diaphyseal surfaces under constant load. Theoretical predictions, J. of Biomechanics, 14, 471-484, 1981.
• 37. S.C. COWIN, R. T. HART, J. R. BASLER, D. H. KAHN, Functional adaptation in long bones: establishing in vivo constants for surface remodelling rate co-efficients, J. of Biomechanics. 18, 665-684, 1985.
• 38. R. T. HART, D. T. DAVY, K. G. HEIPLE, A computational method for stress analysis of adap­ tive elastic materials with a view toward applications in strain-induced bone remodelling, J. of Biomechanical Engineering, 106, 342-350, 1984.
• 39. R. HUISKES, H. WEINANS, H. J. GROOTENBOER, M. DALSTRA, B. FUDELA, T. J. SLOOFF, Adaptive bone remodelling theory applied to prosthetic design analysis, J. of Biomechanics, 20, 1135-1150, 1987.
• 40. H. WEINANS, R. HUISKES and H. J. GROOTENBOER, Effects of material properties of femoral components on bone remodelling, J. of Orthopaedic Research, 10, 845-853, 1992.
• 41. J. VANDER SLOTEN and G. VAN der PERRE, Prediction of the long term evolution of the bone stock around a tailor-made hip implant [In:) Interfaces in Medicine and Mechanics - 2, K. R. WILLIAMS, A. ToNI, J. MIDDLETON and G. PALLOTTI [Eds.], Elsevier Science Publishers, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Interfaces in Medicine and Mechanics, 361-371, 1991.
• 42. H. WEINANS, R. HUISKES and H. J. GROOTENBOER, Adaptive bone remodelling around bonded noncemented total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between animal experiments and computer simulation, J. of Orthopaedic Research, 11, 500-513, 1993.
• 43. B. VAN RIETBERGEN, R. HUISKES, H. WEINANS, D. R. SUMNER, T. M. TURNER and J. 0. GALANTE, The mechanism of bone remodelling and resorption around press-fitted THAstems, J. of Biomechanics, 26, 369-382, 1993.
• 44. S. C. COWIN, Bone stress adaptation models, J. of Biomechanical Engineering, 115, 528-533, 1993.
• 45. H. WEINANS, R. HUISKES and H. GROOTENBOER, The behaviour of adaptive bone remodelling simulation models, J. of Biomechanics, 25, 1425-1441, 1992.
• 46. C. R. JACOBS, M. E. LEVENSTON, G. S. BEAUPRE, J. C. SIMO and D. R. CARTER, Numerical instabilities in bone remodelling simulations: the advantages of a node based approach, J. of Biomechanics, 28, 449-459, 1995.
• 47. M.G. MULLENDER and R. HUISKES, Proposal for the regulatory mechanism of Wolff's Law, J. of Orthopaedic Research, 13, 503-512, 1995.
• 48. R. HUISKES, If bone is the answer, then what is the question?, J. of Anatomy, 197, 145-156, 2000.
• 49. H. WEINANS and P. J. PRENDERGAST, Tissue adaptation as a dynamical process Jar from equilibrium, Bone, 19, 143-149, 1996.
• 50. P. J. PRENDERGAST and D. TAYLOR, Prediction of bone adaptation using damage accumulation, J. of Biomechanics, 27, 1067-1076, 1994.
• 51. L. A. LANYON and C. T. RUBIN, Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodelling, J. of Biomechanics, 17, 897-905, 1984.
• 52. H. M. FROST, Presence of microscopic cracks in vivo in bone, Henry Ford Hospital Medical Bulletin, 8, 25-35, 1960.
• 53. F. J. O'BRIEN, D. TAYLOR, G. R. DICKSON and T. C. LEE, Visualisation of three­dimensional microcracks in compact bone, J. of Anatomy, 197, 413-420, 2000.
• 54. T. C. LEE, L. NOELKE, G. T. McMAHON, J.P. MULVILLE and D. TAYLOR, Functional adap­ tation in bone [In:] IUTAM Symposium on Synthesis in Bio Solid Mechanics, P. PEDERSEN and M. BENDSOE, [Eds.], Klewer, Dordrecht, 1-10, 1999.
• 55. P. J. PRENDERGAST and D. TAYLOR, Design of intramedullary prostheses to prevent bone loss: predictions based on damage stimulated remodelling, J. of Biomedical Engineering, 14, 499-506, 1992.
• 56. B. P. McNAMARA, D. TAYLOR and P. J. PRENDERGAST, Computer prediction of bone remodelling around noncemented femoral prostheses: the relationship between damage-based and strain-based algorithms, Medical Engineering and Physics, 19, 454-463, 1997.
• 57. P. J. PRENDERGAST and R. HUISKES, Mathematical modelling of microdamage in bone remodelling and adaptation [In:] Bone Structure and Remodelling, A. ODGAARD and H. WEINANS, [Eds.], World Scientific, Singapore, 213-223, 1995.