Literature DB >> 34041519

A Method to Compare Heterogeneous Types of Bone and Cartilage Meshes.

Nynke B Rooks1, Marco T Y Schneider1, Ahmet Erdemir2, Jason P Halloran3, Peter J Laz4, Kevin B Shelburne4, Donald R Hume4, Carl W Imhauser5, William Zaylor6, Shady Elmasry5, Ariel Schwartz2, Snehal K Chokhandre2, Neda Abdollahi Nohouji7, Thor F Besier8.   

Abstract

Accurately capturing the bone and cartilage morphology and generating a mesh remains a critical step in the workflow of computational knee joint modeling. Currently, there is no standardized method to compare meshes of different element types and nodal densities, making comparisons across research teams a significant challenge. The aim of this paper is to describe a method to quantify differences in knee joint bone and cartilages meshes, independent of bone and cartilage mesh topology. Bone mesh-to-mesh distances, subchondral bone boundaries, and cartilage thicknesses from meshes of any type of mesh are obtained using a series of steps involving registration, resampling, and radial basis function fitting after which the comparisons are performed. Subchondral bone boundaries and cartilage thicknesses are calculated and visualized in a common frame of reference for comparison. The established method is applied to models developed by five modeling teams. Our approach to obtain bone mesh-to-mesh distances decreased the divergence seen in selecting a reference mesh (i.e., comparing mesh A-to-B versus mesh B-to-A). In general, the bone morphology was similar across teams. The cartilage thicknesses for all models were calculated and the mean absolute cartilage thickness difference was presented, the articulating areas had the best agreement across teams. The teams showed disagreement on the subchondral bone boundaries. The method presented in this paper allows for objective comparisons of bone and cartilage geometry that is agnostic to mesh type and nodal density.
Copyright © 2021 by ASME.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34041519      PMCID: PMC8299816          DOI: 10.1115/1.4051281

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


  19 in total

1.  Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis.

Authors:  A C Godest; M Beaugonin; E Haug; M Taylor; P J Gregson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Effects of idealized joint geometry on finite element predictions of cartilage contact stresses in the hip.

Authors:  Andrew E Anderson; Benjamin J Ellis; Steve A Maas; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur.

Authors:  A Ramos; J A Simões
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 2.242

4.  Non-invasive assessment of soft-tissue artifact and its effect on knee joint kinematics during functional activity.

Authors:  Massoud Akbarshahi; Anthony G Schache; Justin W Fernandez; Richard Baker; Scott Banks; Marcus G Pandy
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Is cartilage thickness different in young subjects with and without patellofemoral pain?

Authors:  C E Draper; T F Besier; G E Gold; M Fredericson; A Fiene; G S Beaupre; S L Delp
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 6.576

6.  A comparison of patellofemoral cartilage morphology and deformation in anterior cruciate ligament deficient versus uninjured knees.

Authors:  Kwadwo A Owusu-Akyaw; Lauren N Heckelman; Hattie C Cutcliffe; E Grant Sutter; Zoë A Englander; Charles E Spritzer; William E Garrett; Louis E DeFrate
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 7.  Accounting for patient variability in finite element analysis of the intact and implanted hip and knee: a review.

Authors:  Mark Taylor; Rebecca Bryan; Francis Galloway
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 2.747

8.  In vivo cartilage contact deformation in the healthy human tibiofemoral joint.

Authors:  J T Bingham; R Papannagari; S K Van de Velde; C Gross; T J Gill; D T Felson; H E Rubash; G Li
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2008-09-05       Impact factor: 7.580

9.  Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Variations in Model Development.

Authors:  Nynke B Rooks; Marco T Y Schneider; Ahmet Erdemir; Jason P Halloran; Peter J Laz; Kevin B Shelburne; Donald R Hume; Carl W Imhauser; William Zaylor; Shady Elmasry; Ariel Schwartz; Snehal K Chokhandre; Neda Abdollahi Nohouji; Thor F Besier
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.899

Review 10.  SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.

Authors:  Pauli Virtanen; Ralf Gommers; Travis E Oliphant; Matt Haberland; Tyler Reddy; David Cournapeau; Evgeni Burovski; Pearu Peterson; Warren Weckesser; Jonathan Bright; Stéfan J van der Walt; Matthew Brett; Joshua Wilson; K Jarrod Millman; Nikolay Mayorov; Andrew R J Nelson; Eric Jones; Robert Kern; Eric Larson; C J Carey; İlhan Polat; Yu Feng; Eric W Moore; Jake VanderPlas; Denis Laxalde; Josef Perktold; Robert Cimrman; Ian Henriksen; E A Quintero; Charles R Harris; Anne M Archibald; Antônio H Ribeiro; Fabian Pedregosa; Paul van Mulbregt
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 28.547

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cartilage thickness and bone shape variations as a function of sex, height, body mass, and age in young adult knees.

Authors:  Marco Tien-Yueh Schneider; Nynke Rooks; Thor Besier
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 4.996

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.