Tibial Stress Injuries: Aetiology, Classification, Biomechanics and the Failure of Bone

Franklyn, Melanie; Oakes, Barry W

doi:10.5772/32425

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inherent error existed in our bone geometry measures since two dimensional images were used to estimate a three dimensional irregularly shaped tibia. However, this may not pose a significant problem since comparisons were made between groups of subjects within a specific study (Franklyn and Oakes, 2012). Nonetheless, comparisons of our data to other studies may be limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Bone stress in runners with tibial stress fracture

Meardon

Willson

Gries

et al. 2015

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Bone stress in runners with tibial stress fracture

Meardon

Willson

Gries

et al. 2015

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, the model did not have any loads from the musculature applied other than compression, yet, as mentioned above, it is probable that the tibia was subjected to other loads, such as bending, in the rabbit experiments. More significantly, the results of the FE model showed that high compressive stresses occurred on the anterior border of the tibia, yet from clinical research and knowledge of fracture types at this site, TSFs on the anterior border are a result of tensile failure due to tensile or bending forces [13,25,26] . In order to produce large compressive stresses on the anterior border (and tensile stress on the posterior surface), the load line would need to be significantly forward of the centroid, particularly as the tibia is bent anteriorly and the rabbit leg is partially flexed (Figure 12).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the second and third experiments, the strain gauges were bonded to the tibia in predetermined locations using M-Bond 200 cement. Although the positions chosen were somewhat arbitrary as the aim was to validate the FE model in different locations, the magnitude of the stresses in the areas where TSFs [2,4,8,11,12] and Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome [2,13] are sustained were of interest; hence the gauges were attached to those sites.…”

Section: Rabbit Tibial Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental and finite element analysis of tibial stress fractures using a rabbit model

Franklyn

Field²

2013

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To determine if rabbit models can be used to quantify the mechanical behaviour involved in tibial stress fracture (TSF) development. METHODS:Fresh rabbit tibiae were loaded under compression using a specifically-designed test apparatus. Weights were incrementally added up to a load of 30 kg and the mechanical behaviour of the tibia was analysed using tests for buckling, bone strain and hysteresis. Structural mechanics equations were subsequently employed to verify that the results were within the range of values predicted by theory. A finite element (FE) model was developed using cross-sectional computer tomography (CT) images scanned from one of the rabbit bones, and a static load of 6 kg (1.5 times the rabbit's body weight) was applied to represent running. The model was validated using the experimental strain gauge data, then geometric and elemental convergence tests were performed in order to find the minimum number of cross-sectional scans and elements respectively required for convergence. The analysis was then performed using both the model and the experimental results to investigate the mechanical behaviour of the rabbit tibia under compressive load and to examine crack initiation. RESULTS:The experimental tests showed that under a compressive load of up to 12 kg, the rabbit tibia demonstrates linear behaviour with little hysteresis. Up to 30 kg, the bone does not fail by elastic buckling; however, there are low levels of tensile stress which predominately occur at and adjacent to the anterior border of the tibial midshaft: this suggests that fatigue failure occurs in these regions, since bone under cyclic loading initially fails in tension. The FE model predictions were consistent with both mechanics theory and the strain gauge results. The model was highly sensitive to small changes in the position of the applied load due to the high slenderness ratio of the rabbit' s tibia. The modelling technique used in the current study could have applications in the development of human FE models of bone, where, unlike rabbit tibia, the model would be relatively insensitive to very small changes in load position. However, the rabbit model itself is less beneficial as a tool to understand the mechanical behaviour of TSFs in humans due to the small size of the rabbit bone and the limitations of humanscale CT scanning equipment. CONCLUSION:The current modelling technique could be used to develop human FE models. However, the rabbit model itself has significant limitations in understanding human TSF mechanics. Core tip: In the current study, experimental and finite element (FE) analysis demonstrated that under compression, the rabbit tibia exhibits linear behaviour. The stresses in the rabbit tibia are sensitive to small changes in load position due to its high slenderness ratio. Low tensile stresses occur at the anterior border of the midshaft, suggesting that this region fails in fatigue, as ORIGINAL ARTICLE

show abstract

“…This makes the distal radius resistant to tension and bending forces, but weak to shear forces. An axially transmitted compressive force leads to shear forces and often on to fractures at 30° to the compressive load due to the anisotropy of the bone (Franklyn and Oakes, 2012). Shear lines are formed at the weakest point of the bone due to oblique cracking of the osteons and buckling of the lamellae, leading to oblique fracture patterns (Currey and Brear, 1974; Franklyn and Oakes, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An axially transmitted compressive force leads to shear forces and often on to fractures at 30° to the compressive load due to the anisotropy of the bone (Franklyn and Oakes, 2012). Shear lines are formed at the weakest point of the bone due to oblique cracking of the osteons and buckling of the lamellae, leading to oblique fracture patterns (Currey and Brear, 1974; Franklyn and Oakes, 2012). Muscular attachments, such as the brachioradialis, further exacerbate shortening of the distal fragment (Atesok et al., 2011) resulting in further injury to the IOM and TFCC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%