Fiorentino Niccolo M, Atkins Penny R, Kutschke Michael J, Foreman K Bo, Anderson Andrew E
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Room 3100, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Gait Posture. 2016 Oct;50:246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.09.011. Epub 2016 Sep 11.
Hip joint center (HJC) measurement error can adversely affect predictions from biomechanical models. Soft tissue artifact (STA) may exacerbate HJC errors during dynamic motions. We quantified HJC error and the effect of STA in 11 young, asymptomatic adults during six activities. Subjects were imaged simultaneously with reflective skin markers (SM) and dual fluoroscopy (DF), an x-ray based technique with submillimeter accuracy that does not suffer from STA. Five HJCs were defined from locations of SM using three predictive (i.e., based on regression) and two functional methods; these calculations were repeated using the DF solutions. Hip joint center motion was analyzed during six degrees-of-freedom (default) and three degrees-of-freedom hip joint kinematics. The position of the DF-measured femoral head center (FHC), served as the reference to calculate HJC error. The effect of STA was quantified with mean absolute deviation. HJC errors were (mean±SD) 16.6±8.4mm and 11.7±11.0mm using SM and DF solutions, respectively. HJC errors from SM measurements were all significantly different from the FHC in at least one anatomical direction during multiple activities. The mean absolute deviation of SM-based HJCs was 2.8±0.7mm, which was greater than that for the FHC (0.6±0.1mm), suggesting that STA caused approximately 2.2mm of spurious HJC motion. Constraining the hip joint to three degrees-of-freedom led to approximately 3.1mm of spurious HJC motion. Our results indicate that STA-induced motion of the HJC contributes to the overall error, but inaccuracies inherent with predictive and functional methods appear to be a larger source of error.
髋关节中心(HJC)测量误差会对生物力学模型的预测产生不利影响。在动态运动过程中,软组织伪影(STA)可能会加剧HJC误差。我们对11名年轻、无症状成年人在六项活动中的HJC误差及STA的影响进行了量化。使用反射性皮肤标记物(SM)和双荧光透视(DF,一种基于X射线且精度达亚毫米级且不受STA影响的技术)对受试者进行同步成像。利用三种预测性(即基于回归)方法和两种功能性方法,根据SM的位置定义了五个HJC;使用DF的测量结果重复进行这些计算。在六自由度(默认)和三自由度髋关节运动学过程中分析了髋关节中心运动。将DF测量的股骨头中心(FHC)的位置作为计算HJC误差的参考。用平均绝对偏差量化STA的影响。使用SM和DF测量结果时,HJC误差分别为(均值±标准差)16.6±8.4毫米和11.7±11.0毫米。在多项活动中,至少在一个解剖学方向上,SM测量得到的HJC误差均与FHC存在显著差异。基于SM的HJC的平均绝对偏差为2.8±0.7毫米,大于FHC的平均绝对偏差(0.6±0.1毫米),这表明STA导致了约2.2毫米的HJC虚假运动。将髋关节限制为三自由度会导致约3.1毫米的HJC虚假运动。我们的结果表明,STA引起的HJC运动导致了总体误差,但预测性方法和功能性方法本身的不准确性似乎是更大的误差来源。