Literature DB >> 12413966

Registration of 6-DOFs electrogoniometry and CT medical imaging for 3D joint modeling.

S Van Sint Jan1, P Salvia, I Hilal, V Sholukha, M Rooze, G Clapworthy.   

Abstract

The paper describes a method in which two data-collecting systems, medical imaging and electrogoniometry, are combined to allow the accurate and simultaneous modeling of both the spatial kinematics and the morphological surface of a particular joint. The joint of interest (JOI) is attached to a Plexiglas jig that includes four metallic markers defining a local reference system (R(GONIO)) for the kinematics data. Volumetric data of the JOI and the R(GONIO) markers are collected from medical imaging. The spatial location and orientation of the markers in the global reference system (R(CT)) of the medical-imaging environment are obtained by applying object-recognition and classification methods on the image dataset. Segmentation and 3D isosurfacing of the JOI are performed to produce a 3D model including two anatomical objects-the proximal and distal JOI segments. After imaging, one end of a custom-made 3D electrogoniometer is attached to the distal segment of the JOI, and the other end is placed at the R(GONIO) origin; the JOI is displaced and the spatial kinematics data is recorded by the goniometer. After recording, data registration from R(GONIO) to R(CT) occurred prior to simulation. Data analysis was performed using both joint coordinate system (JCS) and instantaneous helical axis (IHA).Finally, the 3D joint model is simulated in real time using the experimental kinematics data. The system is integrated into a computer graphics interface, allowing free manipulation of the 3D scene. The overall accuracy of the method has been validated with two other kinematics data collection methods including a 3D digitizer and interpolation of the kinematics data from discrete positions obtained from medical imaging. Validation has been performed on both superior and inferior radio-ulna joints (i.e. prono-supination motion). Maximal RMS error was 1 degrees and 1.2mm on the helical axis rotation and translation, respectively. Prono-supination of the forearm showed a total rotation of 132 degrees for 0.8mm of translation. The method reproducibility using JCS parameters was in average 1 degrees (maximal deviation=2 degrees ) for rotation, and 1mm (maximal deviation=2mm) for translation. In vitro experiments have been performed on both knee joint and ankle joint. Averaged JCS parameters for the knee were 109 degrees, 17 degrees and 4 degrees for flexion, internal rotation and abduction, respectively. Averaged maximal translation values for the knee were 12, 3 and 4mm posteriorly, medially and proximally, respectively. Averaged JCS parameters for the ankle were 43 degrees, 9 degrees and 3 degrees for plantarflexion, adduction and internal rotation, respectively. Averaged maximal translation values for the ankle were 4, 2 and 1mm anteriorly, medially and proximally, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12413966     DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(02)00074-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  10 in total

1.  Hand skin reconstruction from skeletal landmarks.

Authors:  P Lefèvre; S Van Sint Jan; J P Beauthier; M Rooze
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  Computer-assisted versus manual alignment in THA: a probabilistic approach to range of motion.

Authors:  Anthony J Petrella; Joshua Q Stowe; Darryl D D'Lima; Paul J Rullkoetter; Peter J Laz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Helical axis calculation based on Burmester theory: experimental comparison with traditional techniques for human tibiotalar joint motion.

Authors:  N Sancisi; V Parenti-Castelli; F Corazza; A Leardini
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  In vitro 3D-kinematics of the upper cervical spine: helical axis and simulation for axial rotation and flexion extension.

Authors:  Pierre-Michel Dugailly; Stéphane Sobczak; Victor Sholukha; Serge Van Sint Jan; Patrick Salvia; Véronique Feipel; Marcel Rooze
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  Ex vivo loading of trussed implants for spine fusion induces heterogeneous strains consistent with homeostatic bone mechanobiology.

Authors:  Jason P Caffrey; Esther Cory; Van W Wong; Koichi Masuda; Albert C Chen; Jessee P Hunt; Timothy M Ganey; Robert L Sah
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Multimodal visualization interface for data management, self-learning and data presentation.

Authors:  S Van Sint Jan; X Demondion; G Clapworthy; S Louryan; M Rooze; A Cotten; M Viceconti
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2006-09-02       Impact factor: 1.246

7.  Use of embedded strain gages for the in-vitro study of proximal tibial cancellous bone deformation during knee flexion-extension movement: development, reproducibility and preliminary results of feasibility after frontal low femoral osteotomy.

Authors:  Stéphane Sobczak; Patrick Salvia; Pierre-Michel Dugailly; Philippe Lefèvre; Véronique Feipel; Serge Van Sint Jan; Marcel Rooze
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Variability of manual lumbar spine segmentation.

Authors:  Daniel J Cook; David A Gladowski; Heather N Acuff; Matthew S Yeager; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2012-12-01

9.  Validation protocol for assessing the upper cervical spine kinematics and helical axis: An in vivo preliminary analysis for axial rotation, modeling, and motion representation.

Authors:  Pierre-Michel Dugailly; Stéphane Sobczak; Alphonse Lubansu; Marcel Rooze; Sergevan Sint Jan; Véronique Feipel
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2013-01

10.  3D analysis of the proximal interphalangeal joint kinematics during flexion.

Authors:  Florian Hess; Philipp Fürnstahl; Luigi-Maria Gallo; Andreas Schweizer
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 2.238

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.