Medical Engineering & Physics
Volume 29, Issue 10 , Pages 1065-1072 , December 2007

Determination of suitable sample sizes for multi-patient based finite element studies

Received 15 August 2006 ,Revised 20 November 2006 ,Accepted 22 November 2006.

References 

  1. Prendergast P. Finite element models in tissue mechanics and orthopaedic implant design. Clin Biomech. 1997;12(6):343–366
  2. Markolf K, Amstutz HC. Mechanical strength of the femur following resurfacing and conventional total hip replacement procedures. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res. 1980;147:170–180
  3. Pancanti A, Bernakiewicz M, Viceconti M. The primary stability of a cementless stem varies between subjects as much as between activities. J Biomech. 2003;36(6):777–785
  4. Wong AS, et al. Effect of bone material properties on the initial stability of a cementless hip stem: a finite element study. Proc IMechE J Eng Med. 2005;219(H):265–275
  5. Zannoni C, Mantovani R, Viceconti M. Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Med Eng Phys. 1998;20:735–740
  6. Lengsfeld M, et al. Femoral strain changes after total hip arthroplasty—patient specific finite element analyses 12 years after operation. Med Eng Phys. 2005;27:649–654
  7. Browne M, Langler R, Gregson P. Reliability theory for load bearing biomedical implants. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1285–1292
  8. Heller M, et al. Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech. 2001;34:883–893
  9. Huiskes R, et al. Interface stresses in the resurfaced hip—finite-element analysis of load transmission in the femoral-head. Acta Orthopaed Scand. 1985;56(6):474–478
  10. Taylor M. Finite element analysis of the resurfaced femoral head. Proc IMechE. 2006;220(H):289–297
  11. Amstutz H, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86-A(1):28–39
  12. Taddei F, Pancanti A, Viceconti M. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys. 2004;26:61–69
  13. Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. 2003;36:897–904
  14. Bergmann G, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 2001;34:859–871
  15. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2004;389:53–59
  16. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech. 1993;26(8):969–990
  17. Bergmann G, et al. Hip joint forces during load carrying. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 1997;335:190–201
  18. Chang WC, et al. Uniaxial yield strains for bovine trabecular bone are isotropic and asymmetric. J Orthop Res. 1999;17(4):582–585
  19. Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech. 2001;34:569–577
  20. Julious SA. Tutorial in biostatistics: sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Statist Med. 2004;23:1921–1986
  21. Watanabe Y, et al. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty—finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthrop. 2000;15(4):505–511
  22. Keyak JH, Falkinstein Y. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Med Eng Phys. 2003;25:781–787

PII: S1350-4533(06)00247-5

doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.11.007

Medical Engineering & Physics
Volume 29, Issue 10 , Pages 1065-1072 , December 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution