Fracture toughness is dependent on bone location—A study of the femoral neck, femoral shaft, and the tibial shaft

Brown, Christopher U.; Yeni, Yener N.; Norman, Timothy L.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(20000305)49:3<380::aid-jbm11>3.3.co;2-n

Cited by 14 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 where the crack‐initiation toughness decreases ∼40% over six decades from 40 to 100 years, while the growth toughness is essentially eliminated over the same age range. Such deterioration in the fracture resistance with age is consistent with the trend observed in studies that report single‐value toughnesses 19,22,24,27,28,36,38,52–56,73 . Mechanistic reasons behind this age‐related deterioration in the toughness of human cortical bone are described in the following section.…”

Section: Fracture Toughness Behavioursupporting

confidence: 84%

“…A critical issue with bone fracture is the problem of ageing. Indeed, a large number of studies that have looked at age‐related issues in the mechanical properties of bone have implied a significant deterioration of the fracture toughness with age, 19,22–24,27,28,36,38,43,52–56 some results showing this trend may be seen in Fig. 5.…”

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Bone location is also thought to have an effect on fracture toughness; however, it is often difficult to separate other variables that might be involved to determine the significance of such differences. One study compared the toughness of femoral neck, femoral shaft, and tibial shaft specimens from matched human cadaveric bones in order to isolate the effect of bone location 38 . For identically sized C‐L oriented specimens, the femoral shaft demonstrated significantly higher average G Ic values relative to tibial shaft specimens (520 vs. 400 J/m 2 ).…”

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. In particular, ageing has been associated with changes in mineralization, 56–59 and lowered collagen network integrity, 19 with resultant reduction in the elastic deformability and toughness 5,19,24,36,38,55,56 . Also, it has been suggested that remodelling induced by increasing microdamage with ageing 4 leads to an increase in the difference in properties of the matrix (primary lamellar bone) and the secondary osteons, implying a stronger role for the cement lines and a reduction in the toughness 5,24,36,47 .…”

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A fracture mechanics and mechanistic approach to the failure of cortical bone

Ritchie

Kinney

Kruzic

et al. 2005

Fatigue Fract Eng Mat Struct

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe fracture of bone is a health concern of increasing significance as the population ages.It is therefore of importance to understand the mechanics and mechanisms of how bone fails, both from a perspective of outright (catastrophic) fracture and from delayed/timedependent (subcritical) cracking. To address this need, there have been many in vitro studies to date that have attempted to evaluate the relevant fracture and fatigue properties of human cortical bone; despite these efforts, however, a complete understanding of the mechanistic aspects of bone failure, which spans macroscopic to nanoscale dimensions, is still lacking. This paper seeks to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge of the fracture and fatigue of cortical bone, and to address these issues, whenever possible, in the context of the hierarchical structure of bone. One objective is thus to provide a mechanistic interpretation of how cortical bone fails. A second objective is to develop a framework by which fracture and fatigue results in bone can be presented. While most studies on bone fracture have relied on linear-elastic fracture mechanics to determine a single-value fracture toughness (e.g., K c or G c ), more recently, it has become apparent that, as with many composites or toughened ceramics, the toughness of bone is best described in terms of a resistance-curve (R-curve), where the toughness is evaluated with increasing crack extension. Through the use of the R-curve, the intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting its toughness are separately addressed, where 'intrinsic' refers to the damage processes that are associated with crack growth ahead of the tip, and 'extrinsic' refers to the shielding mechanisms that primarily act in the crack wake. Furthermore, fatigue failure in bone is presented from both a classical fatigue life (S/N ) and fatiguecrack propagation (da/ dN ) perspective, the latter providing for an easier interpretation of fatigue micromechanisms. Finally, factors, such as age, species, orientation, and location, are discussed in terms of their effect on fracture and fatigue behaviour and the associated mechanisms of bone failure.A = scaling constant in the power law for sustained-load crack growth a = crack length/flaw size a o and a c = initial and final crack sizes, respectively B = specimen thickness C = specimen compliance C = scaling constant in the Paris law for fatigue-crack growth da, a = crack growth/extension

show abstract

Section: Fracture Toughness Behavioursupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fracture Toughness Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A fracture mechanics and mechanistic approach to the failure of cortical bone

Ritchie

Kinney

Kruzic

et al. 2005

Fatigue Fract Eng Mat Struct

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of this injury accounts for about 10% of the total incidence of femoral shaft fractures. The femoral shaft and femoral neck fracture are mostly caused by trauma [1][2][3]. When the hip is in the flexion abduction position, and the knee is in the flexion position, the assault from the front and the inertia of the body result in an axial force.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Treatment comparison of femoral shaft with femoral neck fracture: a meta-analysis

Lu¹,

Wang²,

Song³

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the efficacy and complications between reconstruction nail and hollow screw+plate in patients with femoral shaft and femoral neck fracture. Methods:The full text of studies on clinical efficacy involving reconstruction nail and hollow screw+plate was retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted with respect to the operation time, blood loss, healing time of the femoral shaft, healing time of the femoral neck, and complications. Finally, 10 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 991 patients. Results: The meta-analysis suggested better characteristics for the reconstruction nail compared with the hollow screw+plate regarding operation time (OR = − 82.41, 95% CI [− 91.72, − 73.10], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I 2 = 98%), blood loss (OR = − 388.01, 95% CI [− 422.95, − 353.06], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I 2 = 99%), healing time of femoral shaft (MD = − 3.89, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 3.05], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I 2 = 99%), healing time of femoral neck (MD = − 4.04, 95% CI [− 4.33, − 3.75], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.008, I 2 = 60%), and complications (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.31, 0.73], P = 0.0006; P for heterogeneity = 1.00, I 2 = 0%). Conclusion:This meta-analysis shows that a reconstruction nail is a more efficient and safer treatment than a hollow screw+plate for patients with femoral shaft and femoral neck fracture.

show abstract

Cortical Bone Fracture

Ritchie

Kinney

Kruzic

et al. 2006

Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data are given in either K or G as reported by the authors. All reported values are mean values, standard deviations are given when possible. } When specific orientation is unknown, cracking direction is given, see Fig. 2 for details. *Range of mean values for several sets of data from samples tested at different loading rates.w Range of mean values for two sets of data using samples of different thickness.z Range of mean values for three sets of data using samples from different age groups. # Range of mean values for two sets of data using samples stored in different media.

show abstract

Fracture toughness is dependent on bone location—A study of the femoral neck, femoral shaft, and the tibial shaft

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

A fracture mechanics and mechanistic approach to the failure of cortical bone

A fracture mechanics and mechanistic approach to the failure of cortical bone

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Treatment comparison of femoral shaft with femoral neck fracture: a meta-analysis

Cortical Bone Fracture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About