Understanding the biomechanical response of a femoral bone under physiological loads is critical for assessing bone health and fracture risk, particularly in aging populations affected by osteopenia and osteoporosis. This study investigates the mechanical behavior of the femoral bone under standing loading conditions across three bone states: healthy bone, bone with osteopenia, and bone with osteoporosis. In-house finite element solver, PAK, was used to calculate von Mises stress and displacement values for each condition. The influence of reduced bone density on structural integrity was examined by comparing results among the three models. Displacement values increased from 0.724 mm in the healthy model to 1.02 mm in bone with osteopenia and 1.6 mm in bone with osteoporosis. For von Mises stress, the values indicate a slight decrease in stress values with bone density loss. Results obtained by the in-house solver were validated against those obtained from the commercial solver Nastran, showing strong agreement in both stress and displacement values. The findings highlight the importance of early diagnosis of bone diseases and suggest that material properties based on patient-specific data could further enhance the predictive power of such simulations.
Ahirwar H, Gupta VK, Nanda HS. Finite element analysis of fixed bone plates over fractured femur model. *Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2021;24*(15:1742–51.
2.
Bazyar P, Baumgart A, Altenbach H, Usbeck A. An overview of selected material properties in finite element modeling of the human femur. *Biomechanics. 2023;3*(1:124–35.
3.
Chalernpon K, Aroonjarattham P, Aroonjarattham K. Static and dynamic load on hip contact of hip prosthesis and Thai femoral bones. *International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering. 2005;9*(3:251–5.
4.
Clynes MA, Harvey NC, Curtis EM, Fuggle NR, Dennison EM, Cooper C. The epidemiology of osteoporosis. *British Medical Bulletin. 2020;133*(1:105–17.
5.
Dhanopia A, Bhargava M. Finite element analysis of human fractured femur bone implantation with PMMA thermoplastic prosthetic plate. *Procedia Engineering. 2017;173:1658–65.
6.
Eriksen EF. Treatment of osteopenia. *Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders. 2012;13:209–23.
7.
Falcinelli C, Valente F, Vasta M, Traini T. Finite element analysis in implant dentistry: State of the art and future directions. *Dental Materials. 2023;39*(6:539–56.
8.
Kalanović M, Zdravković-Petrović N, Milošević M, Nikolić D, Zdravković N, Filipović N, et al. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of SKY implant system. *Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics. 2010;4*(2:87–96.
9.
Knowles NK, Reeves JM, Ferreira LM. Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) derived Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in finite element studies: a review of the literature. *Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics. 2016;3:1–16.
10.
Kojic M, Slavkovic R, Grujovic N, Zivkovic M. PAK – Finite Element Program for Structural Analysis and Field Problems. 1998.
11.
Perez A, Mahar A, Negus C, Newton P, Impelluso T. A computational evaluation of the effect of intramedullary nail material properties on the stabilization of simulated femoral shaft fractures. *Medical Engineering & Physics. 2008;30*(6:755–7.
12.
Rankovic V, Ristic B, Kojic M. Internal fixation of femoral bone comminuted fracture-Fe analysis. *Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics. 2007;1*(1:120–8.
13.
Singh GD, Singh M. Virtual surgical planning: modeling from the present to the future. *Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10*(23:5655.
14.
Vulovic S, Korunovic N, Trajanovic M, Grujovic N, Vitkovic N. Finite element analysis of CT based femur model using finite element program PAK. *Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics. 2011;5*(2:160–6.
15.
Vulović A, Filipovic N. Determining Young’s Modulus of Elasticity of Cortical Bone from CT Scans. In: *Computational Modeling and Simulation Examples in Bioengineering*. 2021. p. 141–74.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
