Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

A Structured Rehabilitation Protocol for Improved Multifunctional Prosthetic Control: A Case Study
Published on: November 6, 2015
Modular Hemipelvic Prosthesis Preserves Normal Biomechanics and Showed Good Compatibility: A Finite Element Analysis
Yuanrui Luo1, Hongtao Sheng1,2, Yong Zhou1,2
1Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Abstract:
This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical compatibility of a modular hemipelvic prosthesis by comparing stress distributions between an implanted pelvis and a healthy pelvis. Finite element analysis was used to simulate bilateral standing loads on both models, analyzing critical regions such as the sacroiliac joints, iliac crest, acetabulum, and prosthesis connection points. Six models with varied displacements of the hip joint rotational center were also introduced to assess the impact of deviations on stress distribution. The implanted pelvis had a stress distribution closely matching that of the intact pelvis, indicating that the prosthesis design maintained the biomechanical integrity of the pelvis. Stress patterns in displacement models with deviations of less than 10 mm were similar to the standard model, with only minor changes in stress magnitude. However, backward, upward, and inward deviations resulted in stress concentrations, particularly in the prosthesis connection points, increasing the likelihood of mechanical failure. The modular hemipelvic prosthesis demonstrated good biomechanical compatibility with minimal impact on pelvic stress distribution, even with moderate deviations in the hip joint's rotational center; outward, forward, and downward displacements are preferable to minimize stress concentration and prevent implant failure in cases where minor deviations in the rotational center are unavoidable during surgery.
Related Concept Videos
Rigid Body Equilibrium Problems - II
Consider two children sitting on a seesaw, which has negligible mass. The first child has a mass (m1) of 26 kg and sits at point A, which is 1.6 meters (r1) from the pivot point B; the second child has a mass (m2) of 32 kg and sits at point C. How far from the pivot point B should the second child sit (r2) to balance the seesaw?
Normal Strain under Axial Loading
Deformation of Member under Multiple Loadings
In the case of a member with a variable cross-section, the strain is not constant but depends on the position. The deformation of an...
Relation between Poisson's ratio, Modulus of Elasticity and Modulus of Rigidity
Bending of Members Made of Several Materials
Hooke's Law determines stress in each material, stating that stress is proportional to strain but varies due to each material's...
General Case of Eccentric Axial Loading
Consider a member subjected to equal and opposite forces that are applied along a line that does not coincide with the member's neutral axis. In unsymmetrical...

