Literature DB >> 27693944

In-vivo quantification of dynamic hip joint center errors and soft tissue artifact.

Niccolo M Fiorentino1, Penny R Atkins2, Michael J Kutschke1, K Bo Foreman3, Andrew E Anderson4.   

Abstract

Hip joint center (HJC) measurement error can adversely affect predictions from biomechanical models. Soft tissue artifact (STA) may exacerbate HJC errors during dynamic motions. We quantified HJC error and the effect of STA in 11 young, asymptomatic adults during six activities. Subjects were imaged simultaneously with reflective skin markers (SM) and dual fluoroscopy (DF), an x-ray based technique with submillimeter accuracy that does not suffer from STA. Five HJCs were defined from locations of SM using three predictive (i.e., based on regression) and two functional methods; these calculations were repeated using the DF solutions. Hip joint center motion was analyzed during six degrees-of-freedom (default) and three degrees-of-freedom hip joint kinematics. The position of the DF-measured femoral head center (FHC), served as the reference to calculate HJC error. The effect of STA was quantified with mean absolute deviation. HJC errors were (mean±SD) 16.6±8.4mm and 11.7±11.0mm using SM and DF solutions, respectively. HJC errors from SM measurements were all significantly different from the FHC in at least one anatomical direction during multiple activities. The mean absolute deviation of SM-based HJCs was 2.8±0.7mm, which was greater than that for the FHC (0.6±0.1mm), suggesting that STA caused approximately 2.2mm of spurious HJC motion. Constraining the hip joint to three degrees-of-freedom led to approximately 3.1mm of spurious HJC motion. Our results indicate that STA-induced motion of the HJC contributes to the overall error, but inaccuracies inherent with predictive and functional methods appear to be a larger source of error.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical model; Dual fluoroscopy; Femur; Functional hip joint center; Hip joint centre; Pelvis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27693944      PMCID: PMC5119549          DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.09.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  28 in total

1.  Radiographic and non-invasive determination of the hip joint center location: effect on hip joint moments.

Authors:  R N Kirkwood; E G Culham; P Costigan
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  A new method for estimating joint parameters from motion data.

Authors:  Michael H Schwartz; Adam Rozumalski
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Validation of a new model-based tracking technique for measuring three-dimensional, in vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics.

Authors:  Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Stephanie K Brock; Scott Tashman
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.097

4.  Propagation of the hip joint centre location error to the estimate of femur vs pelvis orientation using a constrained or an unconstrained approach.

Authors:  Andrea Cereatti; Valentina Camomilla; Giuseppe Vannozzi; Aurelio Cappozzo
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-07-31       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Metrics for describing soft-tissue artefact and its effect on pose, size, and shape of marker clusters.

Authors:  E Grimpampi; V Camomilla; A Cereatti; P de Leva; A Cappozzo
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  The SCoRE residual: a quality index to assess the accuracy of joint estimations.

Authors:  Rainald M Ehrig; Markus O Heller; Stefan Kratzenstein; Georg N Duda; Adam Trepczynski; William R Taylor
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Hip joint centre localization: Evaluation on normal subjects in the context of gait analysis.

Authors:  Morgan Sangeux; Alana Peters; Richard Baker
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 2.840

8.  Which method of hip joint centre localisation should be used in gait analysis?

Authors:  Morgan Sangeux; Hélène Pillet; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 2.840

9.  Accuracy and feasibility of dual fluoroscopy and model-based tracking to quantify in vivo hip kinematics during clinical exams.

Authors:  Ashley L Kapron; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Steve A Maas; Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Appl Biomech       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 1.833

10.  Prediction of the hip joint centre in adults, children, and patients with cerebral palsy based on magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M E Harrington; A B Zavatsky; S E M Lawson; Z Yuan; T N Theologis
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-04-03       Impact factor: 2.712

View more
  11 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Increased Hip Stresses Resulting From a Cam Deformity and Decreased Femoral Neck-Shaft Angle During Level Walking.

Authors:  Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Soft tissue artifact causes underestimation of hip joint kinematics and kinetics in a rigid-body musculoskeletal model.

Authors:  Niccolo M Fiorentino; Penny R Atkins; Michael J Kutschke; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2020-06-13       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Application of High-Speed Dual Fluoroscopy to Study In Vivo Tibiotalar and Subtalar Kinematics in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability and Asymptomatic Control Subjects During Dynamic Activities.

Authors:  Koren E Roach; K Bo Foreman; Alexej Barg; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 2.827

4.  In Vivo Pelvic and Hip Joint Kinematics in Patients With Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Dual Fluoroscopy Study.

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Joseph A Hartle; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Which Two-dimensional Radiographic Measurements of Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement Best Describe the Three-dimensional Shape of the Proximal Femur?

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; YoungJae Shin; Praful Agrawal; Shireen Y Elhabian; Ross T Whitaker; Jeffrey A Weiss; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  How Does Chondrolabral Damage and Labral Repair Influence the Mechanics of the Hip in the Setting of Cam Morphology? A Finite-Element Modeling Study.

Authors:  Jocelyn N Todd; Travis G Maak; Andrew E Anderson; Gerard A Ateshian; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  3D free-hand ultrasound to register anatomical landmarks at the pelvis and localize the hip joint center in lean and obese individuals.

Authors:  Brian Horsak; Caterine Schwab; Sebastian Durstberger; Alexandra Thajer; Susanne Greber-Platzer; Hans Kainz; Ilse Jonkers; Andreas Kranzl
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement demonstrate increased change in bone-to-bone distance during walking: A dual fluoroscopy study.

Authors:  Cara L Lewis; Keisuke Uemura; Penny R Atkins; Amy L Lenz; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Stephen K Aoki; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 3.102

9.  In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.424

10.  Reconstruction of the lower limb bones from digitised anatomical landmarks using statistical shape modelling.

Authors:  Daniel Nolte; Siu-Teing Ko; Anthony M J Bull; Angela E Kedgley
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 2.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.