Literature DB >> 24231902

Multibody muscle driven model of an instrumented prosthetic knee during squat and toe rise motions.

Antonis P Stylianou, Trent M Guess, Mohammad Kia.   

Abstract

Detailed knowledge of knee joint kinematics and dynamic loading is essential for improving the design and outcomes of surgical procedures, tissue engineering applications, prosthetics design, and rehabilitation. The need for dynamic computational models that link kinematics, muscle and ligament forces, and joint contacts has long been recognized but such body-level forward dynamic models do not exist in recent literature. A main barrier in using computational models in the clinic is the validation of the in vivo contact, muscle, and ligament loads. The purpose of this study was to develop a full body, muscle driven dynamic model with subject specific leg geometries and validate it during squat and toe-rise motions. The model predicted loads were compared to in vivo measurements acquired with an instrumented knee implant. Data for this study were provided by the "Grand Challenge Competition to Predict In-Vivo Knee Loads" for the 2012 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Summer Bioengineering Conference. Data included implant and bone geometries, ground reaction forces, EMG, and the instrumented knee implant measurements. The subject specific model was developed in the multibody framework. The knee model included three ligament bundles for the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL), and one bundle for the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). The implanted tibia tray was segmented into 326 hexahedral elements and deformable contacts were defined between the elements and the femoral component. The model also included 45 muscles on each leg. Muscle forces were computed for the muscle driven simulation by a feedback controller that used the error between the current muscle length in the forward simulation and the muscle length recorded during a kinematics driven inverse simulation. The predicted tibia forces and torques, ground reaction forces, electromyography (EMG) patterns, and kinematics were compared to the experimentally measured values to validate the model. Comparisons were done graphically and by calculating the mean average deviation (MAD) and root mean squared deviation (RMSD) for all outcomes. The MAD value for the tibia vertical force was 279 N for the squat motion and 325 N for the toe-rise motion, 45 N and 53 N for left and right foot ground reaction forces during the squat and 94 N and 82 N for toe-rise motion. The maximum MAD value for any of the kinematic outcomes was 7.5 deg for knee flexion-extension during the toe-rise motion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24231902      PMCID: PMC3705864          DOI: 10.1115/1.4023982

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


  37 in total

1.  A Three-Dimensional Musculoskeletal Model of the Human Knee Joint. Part 1: Theoretical Construct.

Authors:  MARCUS G. Pandy; KOTARO Sasaki; SEONPIL Kim
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.763

2.  Strategies of muscular support of varus and valgus isometric loads at the human knee.

Authors:  D G Lloyd; T S Buchanan
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Experimental evaluation of an elastic foundation model to predict contact pressures in knee replacements.

Authors:  Benjamin J Fregly; Yanhong Bei; Mark E Sylvester
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Direct comparison of measured and calculated total knee replacement force envelopes during walking in the presence of normal and abnormal gait patterns.

Authors:  Hannah J Lundberg; Kharma C Foucher; Thomas P Andriacchi; Markus A Wimmer
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2012-01-28       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Computational modelling of a total knee prosthetic loaded in a dynamic knee simulator.

Authors:  Trent M Guess; Lorin P Maletsky
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.242

6.  ESB Clinical Biomechanics Award 2008: Complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6-10 months.

Authors:  Bernd Heinlein; Ines Kutzner; Friedmar Graichen; Alwina Bender; Antonius Rohlmann; Andreas M Halder; Alexander Beier; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 2.063

7.  In vivo knee loading characteristics during activities of daily living as measured by an instrumented total knee replacement.

Authors:  Annegret Mündermann; Chris O Dyrby; Darryl D D'Lima; Clifford W Colwell; Thomas P Andriacchi
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Three-dimensional dynamic behaviour of the human knee joint under impact loading.

Authors:  E M Abdel-Rahman; M S Hefzy
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.242

9.  A three-dimensional mathematical model of the knee-joint.

Authors:  J Wismans; F Veldpaus; J Janssen; A Huson; P Struben
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Graphic-based musculoskeletal model for biomechanical analyses and animation.

Authors:  Edmund Y S Chao
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.242

View more
  10 in total

1.  Patient-specific computer model of dynamic squatting after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hideki Mizu-Uchi; Clifford W Colwell; Cesar Flores-Hernandez; Benjamin J Fregly; Shuichi Matsuda; Darryl D D'Lima
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Predicted loading on the menisci during gait: The effect of horn laxity.

Authors:  Trent M Guess; Swithin Razu; Hamidreza Jahandar; Antonis Stylianou
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  A novel voluntary weightlifting model in mice promotes muscle adaptation and insulin sensitivity with simultaneous enhancement of autophagy and mTOR pathway.

Authors:  Di Cui; Joshua C Drake; Rebecca J Wilson; Robert J Shute; Bevan Lewellen; Mei Zhang; Henan Zhao; Olivia L Sabik; Suna Onengut; Stuart S Berr; Stephen S Rich; Charles R Farber; Zhen Yan
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 4.  Material models and properties in the finite element analysis of knee ligaments: a literature review.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Maren Freutel; Lutz Dürselen; Marta D'Aiuto; Davide Croce; Tomaso Villa; Valerio Sansone; Bernardo Innocenti
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2014-11-17

5.  Musculoskeletal Model Development of the Elbow Joint with an Experimental Evaluation.

Authors:  Munsur Rahman; Mohsen Sharifi Renani; Akin Cil; Antonis P Stylianou
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-20

6.  Surgical Treatments for Canine Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Assessing Functional Recovery Through Multibody Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Giovanni Putame; Mara Terzini; Cristina Bignardi; Brian Beale; Don Hulse; Elisabetta Zanetti; Alberto Audenino
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2019-08-06

7.  Influences of load carriage and physical activity history on tibia bone strain.

Authors:  Henry Wang; Mohammad Kia; D Clark Dickin
Journal:  J Sport Health Sci       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 7.179

8.  Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Malte Asseln; Jörg Eschweiler; Adam Trepczynski; Philipp Damm; Klaus Radermacher
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Kinematics and kinetics comparison of ultra-congruent versus medial-pivot designs for total knee arthroplasty by multibody analysis.

Authors:  Giovanni Putame; Mara Terzini; Fabrizio Rivera; Maeruan Kebbach; Rainer Bader; Cristina Bignardi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Uncertainty in Muscle-Tendon Parameters can Greatly Influence the Accuracy of Knee Contact Force Estimates of Musculoskeletal Models.

Authors:  Seyyed Hamed Hosseini Nasab; Colin R Smith; Allan Maas; Alexandra Vollenweider; Jörn Dymke; Pascal Schütz; Philipp Damm; Adam Trepczynski; William R Taylor
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.