Overview of the investigated fixation cases.

<p>Five different cases for the three fixation methods are investigated, based on the three different femur models. Furthermore, information of the implemented screws is also provided.</p

Distribution of the material properties along the femur.

<p>Femur with its segmental defect at the lower third is shown. An additional view cut in the frontal plane was created at the proximal end to show the cortical structure along the femoral axis. Dark colour represents areas with low HU values, e.g. air and cancellous bone, light colour represents areas with high HU values, i.e. cortical bone.</p

Results for the gap decrease.

<p>Results were obtained from the experimental testing (Pontos) and different numerical analyses. Mean value and standard deviations are shown for the experimental data, while magnitudes of gap width are shown for the numerical data of all five numerical models. All results were achieved at a load of 227 N.</p

Results of the optical measurements.

<p>Displacement vectors calculated for each marker along the femur at a maximum applied load of 227 N. Direction and magnitude are plotted in the picture taken from the optical measuring system at the last loading step. Calculation of the gap alteration was calculated with displacement vectors between two marker points (indicated with red double-sided arrow). The colour legend represents the displacement magnitude.</p

Summary of the investigated models.

<p>For each investigated femoral model element types and number of elements are listed. The osteosynthesis plate (NCB®) was the same for each model.</p

Experimental test setup.

<p>Posterior view of the test arrangement with a composite left femur mounted in the universal testing machine (Zwick/Roell). Segmental defect is bridged with an osteosynthesis system on the lateral (outer) side and fixed with seven titanium screws. Distal end of the femur is embedded in a metallic socket, filled with casting resin. 57 optical markers were attached onto the femur, socket and the testing machine to calculate their displacement during loading.</p

Magnification of the mesh for the three different femoral models.

<p>Magnifications are given for the area around the femoral head (red box), the area around the screw (blue box) and the area of the medial condylus (green box). Thereby, Model A and B consisted of tetrahedral elements, whereat Model A did not consider any screw holes. Model C was discretised with hexahedral elements and did not consider any screw holes, either.</p

Multibody system of the lower extremity for testing THR.

<p>(a) Multibody topology with illustration of the joint coordinates and the fictive planar joint in the sagittal plane indicated as one revolute (R) and two prismatic (P) joints. (b) Measured and transferred coordinates <math><msub><mi>c</mi><mo>¯</mo><mn>1</mn></msub></math>, <math><msub><mi>c</mi><mo>¯</mo><mn>2</mn></msub></math>, <math><msub><mi>c</mi><mo>¯</mo><mn>3</mn></msub></math> in constrained directions of the THR. (c) Musculoskeletal model with implanted CAD geometries of the THR.</p