Effect of Geometry Variation on the Mechanical Behavior of the Proximal Femur

Main Article Content

Amirhossein Borjali
Mahdi Mohseni
Su Mei Van
Mahmoud Chizari


The mechanical behavior of a proximal femur under a normal body weight loading was examined. The geometry of the proximal femur was created in a finite element model using 29 reference points measured on the CT scan images of a patient. Four additional sets of measurements were calculated using ± (1) and ± (2) the standard deviation of the original set and the result of models was compared. The stress distribution and the locations of critical normal and shear stress, as well as the effect of the femur geometry which may be most susceptible to failure were examined. The findings of this study demonstrate an inferior distribution of stress in the plus-standard deviation models and indicate less ability to bear weight. The minus-standard deviation models appear to be better suited to bearing weight and indicate a more even distribution of the stresses generated within the proximal femur.

Finite element analysis, geometry, proximal femur, standard deviation, stress distribution.

Article Details

How to Cite
Borjali, A., Mohseni, M., Van, S. M., & Chizari, M. (2019). Effect of Geometry Variation on the Mechanical Behavior of the Proximal Femur. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 31(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/jammr/2019/v31i330287
Original Research Article


Liong S, Whitehouse R. Lower extremity and pelvic stress fractures in athletes. The British Journal of Radiology. vol. 2012;85: 1148-1156.

Allison SJ, Folland JP, Rennie WJ, Summers GD, Brooke-Wavell K. High impact exercise increased femoral neck bone mineral density in older men: A randomised unilateral intervention. Bone. 2013;53:321-328.

Jang IG, Kim IY.Computational simulation of simultaneous cortical and trabecular bone change in human proximal femur during bone remodeling. Journal of Biomechanics. 2010;43:294-301.

Nawathe S, Nguyen BP, Barzanian N, Akhlaghpour H, Bouxsein ML, Keaveny TM. Cortical and trabecular load sharing in the human femoral neck. Journal of Biomechanics. 2015;48:816-822.

Juszczyk MM, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. The human proximal femur behaves linearly elastic up to failure under physiological loading conditions. Journal of Biomechanics. 2011;44:2259-2266.

Rudman KE, Aspden RM, Meakin JR. Compression or tension? The stress distribution in the proximal femur. Bio Medical Engineering OnLine. 2006;5:12.

Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, Radermacher K, Weichert D, Forst R. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics. 2000;33:1325-30.

Oftadeh R, Perez-Viloria M, Villa-Camacho JC, Vaziri A, Nazarian A. Biomechanics and mechanobiology of trabecular bone: A review. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2015;137:1.
DOI: 10.1115/1.4029176.

Nolte D, Bull AMJ. Femur finite element model instantiation from partial anatomies using statistical shape and appearance models. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2019;67:55-65.

Athapattu M, Saveh AH, Kazemi SM, Wang B, Chizari M. Measurement of the femoral head diameter at hemiarthroplasty of the hip. Procedia Technology. 2014;17: 217–222.
DOI: 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.231.

Suppanee R, Yazdifar M, Chizari M, Esat I, Bardakos NV, Field RE. Simulating osteoarthritis: The effect of the changing thickness of articular cartilage on the kinematics and pathological bone-to-bone contact in a hip joint with femoroacetabular impingement. Eur Orthop Traumatol. 2014; 5:65-73.
DOI: 10.1007/s12570-013-0196-0.

Fetto JF. A dynamic model of hip joint biomechanics: The contribution of soft tissues. Adv Orthop. 5804642; 2019.
DOI: 10.1155/2019/5804642.

Jang IG, Kim IY. Computational study of Wolff’s law with trabecular architecture in the human proximal femur using topology optimization. Journal of Biomechanics. 2008;41:2353-2361.