Literature DB >> 25979383

Sensitivity of predicted muscle forces during gait to anatomical variability in musculotendon geometry.

Lode Bosmans1, Giordano Valente2, Mariska Wesseling1, Anke Van Campen3, Friedl De Groote3, Joris De Schutter3, Ilse Jonkers4.   

Abstract

Scaled generic musculoskeletal models are commonly used to drive dynamic simulations of motions. It is however, acknowledged that not accounting for variability in musculoskeletal geometry and musculotendon parameters may confound the simulation results, even when analysing control subjects. This study documents the three-dimensional anatomical variability of musculotendon origins and insertions of 33 lower limb muscles determined based on magnetic resonance imaging in six subjects. This anatomical variability was compared to the musculotendon point location in a generic musculoskeletal model. Furthermore, the sensitivity of muscle forces during gait, calculated using static optimization, to perturbations of the musculotendon point location was analyzed with a generic model. More specific, a probabilistic approach was used: for each analyzed musculotendon point, the three-dimensional location was re-sampled with a uniform Latin hypercube method within the anatomical variability and the static optimization problem was then re-solved for all perturbations. We found that musculotendon point locations in the generic model showed only variable correspondences with the anatomical variability. The anatomical variability of musculotendon point location did affect the calculated muscle forces: muscles most sensitive to perturbations within the anatomical variability are iliacus and psoas. Perturbation of the gluteus medius anterior, iliacus and psoas induces the largest concomitant changes in muscle forces of the unperturbed muscles. Therefore, when creating subject-specific musculoskeletal models, these attachment points should be defined accurately. In addition, the size of the anatomical variability of the musculotendon point location was not related to the sensitivity of the calculated muscle forces.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:  Anatomical variability; Dynamic simulations; Muscle forces; Sensitivity analysis; Subject-specific musculoskeletal models

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25979383     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.02.052

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


  8 in total

1.  Improving Musculoskeletal Model Scaling Using an Anatomical Atlas: The Importance of Gender and Anthropometric Similarity to Quantify Joint Reaction Forces.

Authors:  Ziyun Ding; Chui K Tsang; Daniel Nolte; Angela E Kedgley; Anthony M J Bull
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Relationship Between Training Factors and Injuries in Stand-Up Paddleboarding Athletes.

Authors:  Arkaitz Castañeda-Babarro; Julio Calleja-González; Aitor Viribay; Diego Fernández-Lázaro; Patxi León-Guereño; Juan Mielgo-Ayuso
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  A Patient-Specific Foot Model for the Estimate of Ankle Joint Forces in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

Authors:  Joe A I Prinold; Claudia Mazzà; Roberto Di Marco; Iain Hannah; Clara Malattia; Silvia Magni-Manzoni; Maurizio Petrarca; Anna B Ronchetti; Laura Tanturri de Horatio; E H Pieter van Dijkhuizen; Stefan Wesarg; Marco Viceconti
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Sensitivity of a juvenile subject-specific musculoskeletal model of the ankle joint to the variability of operator-dependent input.

Authors:  Iain Hannah; Erica Montefiori; Luca Modenese; Joe Prinold; Marco Viceconti; Claudia Mazzà
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.617

5.  Influence of musculotendon geometry variability in muscle forces and hip bone-on-bone forces during walking.

Authors:  E Martín-Sosa; J Martínez-Reina; J Mayo; J Ojeda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Femoral neck strain prediction during level walking using a combined musculoskeletal and finite element model approach.

Authors:  Zainab Altai; Erica Montefiori; Bart van Veen; Margaret A Paggiosi; Eugene V McCloskey; Marco Viceconti; Claudia Mazzà; Xinshan Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Biomechanical Study of a Tricompartmental Unloader Brace for Patellofemoral or Multicompartment Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Chris A McGibbon; Scott Brandon; Emily L Bishop; Chris Cowper-Smith; Edmund N Biden
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-01-28

8.  Refining muscle geometry and wrapping in the TLEM 2 model for improved hip contact force prediction.

Authors:  Enrico De Pieri; Morten E Lund; Anantharaman Gopalakrishnan; Kasper P Rasmussen; David E Lunn; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.