Dzialo C M, Pedersen P H, Simonsen C W, Jensen K K, de Zee M, Andersen M S
Department of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 16, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
J Biomech. 2018 Apr 27;72:71-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.02.032. Epub 2018 Mar 10.
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 (R) 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°).
本研究的目的是引入并验证一种新型的计算高效的个体特异性胫股关节模型。受试者进行准静态弓步动作,同时在胫股关节屈曲大致0°、20°、45°、60°和90°时采集微量辐射双平面X射线(法国巴黎EOS Imaging公司)。通过二维到三维骨重建,使用迭代最近点优化技术从该实验数据中提取关节平移和旋转,并用于模型校准和验证。在AnyBody建模系统(AMS)中,根据磁共振成像(MRI)提取的解剖表面构建用于比较的个体特异性动轴和铰链模型,并与实验数据进行比较。铰链模型的胫股轴定义在髁上,而动轴模型基于两个胫股屈曲角度(0°和90°)定义,并且对关节进行建模,使得胫股关节轴在这两个位置之间根据胫股屈曲呈线性移动。在此范围之外,假定关节轴保持固定。总体而言,动轴模型对二次关节运动学(ML:内外侧,AP:前后向,SI:上下向,IE:内外旋,AA:内收外展)的近似效果更好,平均差异和标准误差分别为(ML:-1.98±0.37毫米,AP:6.50±0.82毫米,SI:0.05±0.20毫米,IE:0.59±0.36°,AA:1.90±0.79°),并且每个临床测量指标的决定系数(R)更高。而铰链模型的平均差异和标准误差分别为(ML:-0.84±0.45毫米,AP:10.11±0.88毫米,SI:0.66±0.62毫米,IE:-3.17±0.86°,AA:11.60±1.51°)。