Evaluation of finite element modeling methods for predicting compression screw failure in a custom pelvic implant.

Three-dimensional (3D)-printed custom pelvic implants have become a clinically viable option for patients undergoing pelvic cancer surgery with resection of the hip joint. However, increased clinical utilization has also necessitated improved implant durability, especially with regard to the compression screws used to secure the implant to remaining pelvic bone. This study evaluated six different finite element (FE) screw modeling methods for predicting compression screw pullout and fatigue failure in a custom pelvic implant secured to bone using nine compression screws. Three modeling methods (tied constraints (TIE), bolt load with constant force (BL-CF), and bolt load with constant length (BL-CL)) generated screw axial forces using functionality built into Abaqus FE software; while the remaining three modeling methods (isotropic pseudo-thermal field (ISO), orthotropic pseudo-thermal field (ORT), and equal-and-opposite force field (FOR)) generated screw axial forces using iterative physics-based relationships that can be implemented in any FE software. The ability of all six modeling methods to match specified screw pretension forces and predict screw pullout and fatigue failure was evaluated using an FE model of a custom pelvic implant with total hip replacement. The applied hip contact forces in the FE model were estimated at two locations in a gait cycle. For each of the nine screws in the custom implant FE model, likelihood of screw pullout failure was predicted using maximum screw axial force, while likelihood of screw fatigue failure was predicted using maximum von Mises stress. The three iterative physics-based modeling methods and the non-iterative Abaqus BL-CL method produced nearly identical predictions for likelihood of screw pullout and fatigue failure, while the other two built-in Abaqus modeling methods yielded vastly different predictions. However, the Abaqus BL-CL method required the least computation time, largely because an iterative process was not needed to induce specified screw pretension forces. Of the three iterative methods, FOR required the fewest iterations and thus the least computation time. These findings suggest that the BL-CL screw modeling method is the best option when Abaqus is used for predicting screw pullout and fatigue failure in custom pelvis prostheses, while the iterative physics-based FOR method is the best option if FE software other than Abaqus is used.