Finite Element Analysis in Medical Device Testing

Finite Element Analysis as a Surrogate for Physical Testing of Medical Devices 

Finite element analysis (FEA) is becoming an increasingly valuable tool in the design and development of novel medical devices, offering the potential to reduce the reliance on physical testing. The extent to which computational modeling can substitute for traditional benchtop testing is highly dependent on regulatory pathways, device complexity, and maybe most importantly the level of validation which is established for the computational approach. 

Regulatory Acceptance of FEA for Medical Devices

Regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, are progressively embracing in-silico computational modelling as a part of assessing medical devices, and through initiatives like the Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) program, certain computational models have achieved formal qualifications utilising well documented validations. FDA guidance documents, particularly those addressing specific device types like orthopaedic hip and knee replacement implants, cardiovascular stents or spinal fusion devices, increasingly acknowledge that FEA may be used for evidence when suitably validated. 

Key principles essential for regulatory acceptance of FEA focus on demonstrating that the computational models accurately represent the physical test system (not only the medical device but the complete test constructs) it aims to replicate. This requires establishing credibility through verification and validation. The ASME V&V 40 standard provides a framework for assessing the relevance and adequacy of the V&V activities undertaken.

When Can FEA Replace Physical Testing?

The potential for computational modelling is particularly strong where physical testing may present practical limitations. Fatigue analysis of complex devices exemplifies this advantage; not only by speeding up the acquisition of data by simulating many millions of loading cycles computationally in hours rather than months required for physical testing. For devices like cardiovascular stents or orthopaedic implants that must survive repetitive loading throughout their service life, FEA can predict failure modes and estimate device longevity. 

Parametric studies represent another area where computation may offer substantial benefits. When optimising design variables such as geometry or material selection undertaking many iterative physical tests become prohibitively costly and time-consuming. FEA enables rapid exploration of the design space, optimising critical outputs before committing to physical prototyping. 

Computational FEA analysis also excels at revealing stress distributions and mechanical behaviours in regions of the device that can challenge experimental measurement. Internal stress states, localised strain concentrations, and interfacial mechanics often prove difficult or even impossible to capture with physical sensors, yet computational models can visualise these parameters throughout the entire device structure. Identification and elimination of stress concentrators in a design can greatly help in avoiding unexpected mechanical test failures and expensive redesign loops in the R&D process. 

Limits of In-Silico Evidence in Medical Device Submissions

Despite these notable advantages of FEA in certain circumstances, complete replacement of physical testing remains very rare in medical device submissions. Characterisation of materials properties still requires experimental determination, and no amount of computational sophistication eliminates the need for accurate input data about how materials behave. It is also noted that complex biological interactions, including tissue remodeling, cellular responses, and immunological reactions, extend beyond what current structural FEA can predict. 

Manufacturing variability also introduces another layer of complexity to modelling. Physical devices exhibit variations in material properties, dimensional tolerances, and surface characteristics that computational models typically idealise away. Understanding how these real-world imperfections can affect performance often requires physical testing of “worst-case” production-representative samples. 

Regulatory reviewers require some degree of physical validation even when accepting computational results. This validation may include testing a subset of conditions, confirming worst-case scenarios, or validating the model against representative physical experiments. The balance can shift depending on the strength of the computational approach and the availability of prior validation data. 

Verification, Validation, and ASME V&V 40

Establishing confidence in FEA results requires a systematic demonstration of a models accuracy to replicate the physical test set-up. This begins with verification activities, comparing computational solutions against analytical solutions or convergence studies that address the aspects that can affect the solution accuracy of any numerical analysis, such as mesh density and quality, solution convergence tolerances or controls, time step and other factors. Validation activities then compare model predictions against experimental data for test configurations representing the intended application. 

The concept of “context of use” becomes central here. A computational model validated for predicting stress distributions in one loading scenario may not automatically extend to different loading conditions or geometric variations. Clearly defining the boundaries within which the model has been validated helps both developers and regulators understand where computational evidence sufficiently supports the decision-making processes. 

Documentation practices can significantly influence regulatory acceptance. Transparent reporting of modelling assumptions, material properties, boundary conditions, and mesh characteristics allows reviewers to assess the appropriateness and thoroughness of the computational approach. When models have been previously validated or qualified through the MDDT program, referencing this prior work may also strengthen the case for reduced physical testing. 

Hybrid Testing Strategies: Combining FEA and Benchtop Testing

Many successful regulatory submissions that include FEA employ a hybrid strategy that leverages the strengths of both computational and physical testing. FEA is often used to screen design and / or materials concepts and identify critical regions requiring focused experimental validation. Physical testing then confirms model predictions for key performance metrics or worst-case conditions, while the validated computational model addresses the broader range of use conditions. 

This complementary approach proves particularly effective for complex devices with multiple potential failure modalities. Critical safety considerations might warrant physical confirmation, while secondary design features receive computational evaluation once the modelling approach has been validated. The strategy allows efficient use of testing resources while maintaining appropriate safety margins and optimising timeliness of testing. 

As computational methods such as FEA mature and regulatory experience grows, medical devices in well-understood categories with established modelling precedents may receive more weight on computational evidence, while novel technologies will typically require more extensive physical validation until confidence builds in the modelling approach. At the time of writing this document there are an increasing number of active standards for FEA analysis of total knee and total hip arthroplasty medical devices (e.g. ASTM F2996, F3334, F3161), and cardiovascular devices (e.g. ASTM F2514, F3211). 

The question ultimately shifts from whether FEA can replace physical testing to identifying where computational evidence provides sufficient assurance for specific regulatory decisions. This determination depends upon the model’s validation state, the criticality of the performance question, and the regulatory pathway pursued for the device. 

Software Validation and IEC 62304 Context

In 2018 the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) published document V&V 40, a standard providing a framework for assessing the relevancy and adequacy of verification and validation (V&V) activities for computational models. The “V&V40” designation comes from software development lifecycle activities outlined in IEC 62304, and it represents a comprehensive approach to V&V integrated throughout medical device development rather than as a single stand-alone milestone. 

IEC 62304 establishes a risk-based framework for medical device software and requires manufacturers to demonstrate that software performs as intended and meets user needs through systematic verification and validation activities. These activities scale with the software safety classification (Class A, B, or C), with higher-risk software demanding more rigorous V&V protocols. Verification confirms that software outputs meet input requirements and include activities like code reviews, unit testing, and integration testing that occur throughout device development. Validation demonstrates that the final software product meets user needs and intended uses in its operating environment, and involves usability testing, clinical evaluation (when applicable), and confirmation that the software performs correctly under actual use conditions. 

Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Test Labs Limited. The content provided is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal or professional advice. Test Labs assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content of this article, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.