Development and validation of a subject-specific moving-axis tibiofemoral joint model using MRI and EOS imaging during a quasi-static lunge

The aims of this study were to introduce and validate a novel computationally-efficient subject-specific tibiofemoral joint model. Subjects performed a quasi-static lunge while micro-dose radiation bi-planar X-rays (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) were captured at roughly 0°, 20°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of biomechanics Jg. 72; S. 71 - 80
Hauptverfasser: Dzialo, C.M., Pedersen, P.H., Simonsen, C.W., Jensen, K.K., de Zee, M., Andersen, M.S.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Elsevier Ltd 27.04.2018
Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:
Calibration
EOS imaging
Iterative methods
Kinematics
Knee
Magnetic resonance imaging
Musculoskeletal knee model
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Radiation dosage
Researchers
Secondary joint kinematics
Standard deviation
Tibiofemoral joint
Translations
X-rays
United States > US
EOS imaging
Secondary joint kinematics
Musculoskeletal knee model
Magnetic resonance imaging
Tibiofemoral joint
ISSN:0021-9290, 1873-2380, 1873-2380
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aims of this study were to introduce and validate a novel computationally-efficient subject-specific tibiofemoral joint model. Subjects performed a quasi-static lunge while micro-dose radiation bi-planar X-rays (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) were captured at roughly 0°, 20°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of tibiofemoral flexion. Joint translations and rotations were extracted from this experimental data through 2D-to-3D bone reconstructions, using an iterative closest point optimization technique, and employed during model calibration and validation. Subject-specific moving-axis and hinge models for comparisons were constructed in the AnyBody Modeling System (AMS) from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-extracted anatomical surfaces and compared against the experimental data. The tibiofemoral axis of the hinge model was defined between the epicondyles while the moving-axis model was defined based on two tibiofemoral flexion angles (0° and 90°) and the articulation modeled such that the tibiofemoral joint axis moved linearly between these two positions as a function of the tibiofemoral flexion. Outside this range, the joint axis was assumed to remain stationary. Overall, the secondary joint kinematics (ML: medial–lateral, AP: anterior-posterior, SI: superior-inferior, IE: internal-external, AA: adduction-abduction) were better approximated by the moving-axis model with mean differences and standard errors of (ML: −1.98 ± 0.37 mm, AP: 6.50 ± 0.82 mm, SI: 0.05 ± 0.20 mm, IE: 0.59 ± 0.36°, AA: 1.90 ± 0.79°) and higher coefficients of determination (R2) for each clinical measure. While the hinge model achieved mean differences and standard errors of (ML: −0.84 ± 0.45 mm, AP: 10.11 ± 0.88 mm, SI: 0.66 ± 0.62 mm, IE: −3.17 ± 0.86°, AA: 11.60 ± 1.51°).
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0021-9290
1873-2380
1873-2380
DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.02.032