ArticleJournal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials2025
Development of a subject-specific finite element analysis workflow to assess local biomechanics during segmental bone defect healing.
Article in Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined application of antibiotic bone cement and bone transport technique in tibial osteomyelitis with bone defect: A case report.Medicine · 2026Article
- From pixels to precision: a narrative review of AI-driven 3D morphological analysis and digital twinning in alveolar cleft management.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Subject-specific multivariate modeling for regenerative rehabilitation of bone healing.APL bioengineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Longitudinal estimation of local strain distributions within the regenerative niche of segmental femoral fractures is important for understanding mechanobiology principles for bone healing to design more effective rehabilitation regimens and mitigate nonunion complications. Finite element (FE) modeling is the standard for investigating these biomechanical parameters, yet most existing models lack clinical relevance due to their use of generic data and computational inefficiency. This study developed a subject-specific FE workflow aimed at accurate biomechanical predictions based on subject-specific data while addressing the limitations of previous approaches. For the experimental study, near-critical-sized segmental bone defects were created in the femurs of Wistar rats and stabilized with internal fixators before rehabilitation. Subject-specific geometries of the defect were generated from in vivo micro-CT scans, which were also used to assign material coefficients. Generalized geometries of the cortical and trabecular bone and fixator were integrated to increase computational efficiency. In addition, axial strain data from strain gauges on the fixators were used to define subject-specific boundary conditions, enabling a longitudinal study of the healing process. Sensitivity analyses revealed that incorporating subject-specific boundary conditions significantly enhanced model accuracy, a factor often overlooked in conventional approaches. The workflow was used to build six defect models to approximate compressive strains within the defect and the joint contact force. Strain distributions correlated with experimentally observed mineralization and better predicted functional bone bridging (union) compared to bone volume metrics. This efficient workflow facilitates the assessment of local biomechanics during bone healing and highlights their influence on adaptive regeneration. Further, the findings support the potential application of the subject-specific modeling workflow to guide clinical decision-making and improve therapeutic outcomes for treating bone fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.