A new discrete element analysis method for predicting hip joint contact stresses

• Published in: Journal of biomechanics Vol. 46; no. 6; pp. 1121 - 1127
• Main Authors: Abraham, Christine L., Maas, Steve A., Weiss, Jeffrey A., Ellis, Benjamin J., Peters, Christopher L., Anderson, Andrew E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 05.04.2013; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; Biomedical materials; Bone and Bones - physiology; Bones; Cartilage; Cartilage mechanics; Cartilage, Articular - physiology; Computational modeling; Contact; Contact stress; Contact stresses; Discrete element analysis; Finite Element Analysis; Finite element method; Gears; Hip; Hip joint; Hip Joint - physiology; Humans; Male; Mathematical models; Models, Biological; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Reproducibility of Results; Stress, Mechanical; Studies; Surgical implants; Cartilage; Cartilage mechanics; Discrete element analysis; Computational modeling; Contact stress; Finite element analysis; Hip
• ISSN: 0021-9290; 1873-2380; 1873-2380
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.01.012

Quantifying cartilage contact stress is paramount to understanding hip osteoarthritis. Discrete element analysis (DEA) is a computationally efficient method to estimate cartilage contact stresses. Previous applications of DEA have underestimated cartilage stresses and yielded unrealistic contact patterns because they assumed constant cartilage thickness and/or concentric joint geometry. The study objectives were to: (1) develop a DEA model of the hip joint with subject-specific bone and cartilage geometry, (2) validate the DEA model by comparing DEA predictions to those of a validated finite element analysis (FEA) model, and (3) verify both the DEA and FEA models with a linear-elastic boundary value problem. Springs representing cartilage in the DEA model were given lengths equivalent to the sum of acetabular and femoral cartilage thickness and gap distance in the FEA model. Material properties and boundary/loading conditions were equivalent. Walking, descending, and ascending stairs were simulated. Solution times for DEA and FEA models were ∼7s and ∼65min, respectively. Irregular, complex contact patterns predicted by DEA were in excellent agreement with FEA. DEA contact areas were 7.5%, 9.7% and 3.7% less than FEA for walking, descending stairs, and ascending stairs, respectively. DEA models predicted higher peak contact stresses (9.8–13.6MPa) and average contact stresses (3.0–3.7MPa) than FEA (6.2–9.8 and 2.0–2.5MPa, respectively). DEA overestimated stresses due to the absence of the Poisson's effect and a direct contact interface between cartilage layers. Nevertheless, DEA predicted realistic contact patterns when subject-specific bone geometry and cartilage thickness were used. This DEA method may have application as an alternative to FEA for pre-operative planning of joint-preserving surgery such as acetabular reorientation during peri-acetabular osteotomy.