Literature DB >> 19275433

Experimental analysis of Model-Based Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis (MBRSA) on four typical prosthesis components.

Frank Seehaus1, Judith Emmerich, Bart L Kaptein, Henning Windhagen, Christof Hurschler.   

Abstract

Classical marker-based roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) is an accurate method of measuring in vivo implant migration. A disadvantage of the method is the necessity of placing tantalum markers on the implant, which constitutes additional manufacturing and certification effort. Model-based RSA (MBRSA) is a method by which pose-estimation of geometric surface-models of the implant is used to detect implant migration. The placement of prosthesis markers is thus no longer necessary. The accuracy of the pose-estimation algorithms used depends on the geometry of the prosthesis as well as the accuracy of the surface models used. The goal of this study was thus to evaluate the experimental accuracy and precision of the MBRSA method for four different, but typical prosthesis geometries, that are commonly implanted. Is there a relationship existing between the accuracy of MBRSA and prosthesis geometries? Four different prosthesis geometries were investigated: one femoral and one tibial total knee arthroplasty (TKA) component and two different femoral stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) components. An experimental phantom model was used to simulate two different implant migration protocols, whereby the implant was moved relative to the surrounding bone (relative prosthesis-bone motion (RM)), or, similar to the double-repeated measures performed to assess accuracy clinically, both the prosthesis and the surrounding bone model (zero relative prosthesis-bone motion (ZRM)) were moved. Motions were performed about three translational and three rotational axes, respectively. The maximum 95% confidence interval (CI) for MBRSA of all four prosthesis investigated was better than -0.034 to 0.107 mm for in-plane and -0.217 to 0.069 mm for out-of-plane translation, and from -0.038 deg to 0.162 deg for in-plane and from -1.316 deg to 0.071 deg for out-of-plane rotation, with no clear differences between the ZRM and RM protocols observed. Accuracy in translation was similar between TKA and THA components, whereas rotational accuracy about the long axis of the hip stem THA components was worse than the TKA components. The data suggest that accuracy and precision of MBRSA seem to be equivalent to the classical marker-based RSA method, at least for the nonsymmetric implant geometries investigated in this study. The model-based method thus allows the accurate measurement of implant migration without requiring prosthesis markers, and thus presents new opportunities for measuring implant migration where financial or geometric considerations of marker placement have thus far been prohibitive factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19275433     DOI: 10.1115/1.3072892

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  14 in total

1.  Analysis of migration of the Nanos® short-stem hip implant within two years after surgery.

Authors:  Stefan Budde; Frank Seehaus; Michael Schwarze; Christof Hurschler; Thilo Floerkemeier; Henning Windhagen; Yvonne Noll; Max Ettinger; Fritz Thorey
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Digital stereophotogrammetry based on circular markers and zooming cameras: evaluation of a method for 3D analysis of small motions in orthopaedic research.

Authors:  Evgenij Bobrowitsch; Christof Hurschler; Gavin Olender; Christian Plaass; Hazibullah Waizy; Heino Arnold; Christina Stukenborg-Colsman
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 2.819

3.  Experimental evaluation of precision and accuracy of RSA in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Marie Christina Keller; Christof Hurschler; Michael Schwarze
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  In vitro quantification of the performance of model-based mono-planar and bi-planar fluoroscopy for 3D joint kinematics estimation.

Authors:  Luca Tersi; Arnaud Barré; Silvia Fantozzi; Rita Stagni
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Static and dynamic error of a biplanar videoradiography system using marker-based and markerless tracking techniques.

Authors:  Daniel L Miranda; Joel B Schwartz; Andrew C Loomis; Elizabeth L Brainerd; Braden C Fleming; Joseph J Crisco
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.097

6.  Relationship of anterior knee laxity to knee translations during drop landings: a bi-plane fluoroscopy study.

Authors:  Michael R Torry; C Myers; W W Pennington; K B Shelburne; J P Krong; J E Giphart; J R Steadman; Savio L-Y Woo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-12-11       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  High knee valgus in female subjects does not yield higher knee translations during drop landings: a biplane fluoroscopic study.

Authors:  Michael R Torry; Kevin B Shelburne; Casey Myers; J Erik Giphart; W Wesley Pennington; Jacob P Krong; Daniel S Peterson; J Richard Steadman; Savio L-Y Woo
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Measurement of migration of a humeral head resurfacing prosthesis using radiostereometry without implant marking: an experimental study.

Authors:  Olof Sköldenberg; Magnus Odquist
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Longitudinal migration and inducible displacement of the Mobility Total Ankle System.

Authors:  Michael J Dunbar; Jason W Fong; David A Wilson; Allan W Hennigar; Patricia A Francis; Mark A Glazebrook
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Dependence of model-based RSA accuracy on higher and lower implant surface model quality.

Authors:  Frank Seehaus; Judith Emmerich; Bart L Kaptein; Henning Windhagen; Christof Hurschler
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.