| Literature DB >> 35062630 |
Benjamin Steven Vien1, Wing Kong Chiu1, Matthias Russ2,3, Mark Fitzgerald2,3.
Abstract
Reliable and quantitative assessments of bone quality and fracture healing prompt well-optimised patient healthcare management and earlier surgical intervention prior to complications of nonunion and malunion. This study presents a clinical investigation on modal frequencies associations with musculoskeletal components of human legs by using a prototype device based on a vibration analysis method. The findings indicated that the first out-of-plane and coupled modes in the frequency range from 60 to 110 Hz are associated with the femur length, suggesting these modes are suitable quantitative measures for bone evaluation. Furthermore, higher-order modes are shown to be associated with the muscle and fat mass of the leg. In addition, mathematical models are formulated via a stepwise regression approach to determine the modal frequencies using the measured leg components as variables. The optimal models of the first modes consist of only femur length as the independent variable and explain approximately 43% of the variation of the modal frequencies. The subsequent findings provide insights for further development on utilising vibration-based methods for practical bone and fracture healing monitoring.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanics; bone assessment; fracture healing; human health monitoring; medical device; modal frequency; vibration analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062630 PMCID: PMC8779651 DOI: 10.3390/s22020670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of different assessment methods of fracture healing.
| Conventional Radiography | Computed Tomography | Bone Scintigraphy | Direct Biomechanical Testing | Indirect Biomechanical Testing | Vibration Analysis Method | Quantitative Ultrasound/Guided Wave | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Imaging Measures | Imaging Measures | Imaging Measures | Mechanical Properties Testing | Mechanical Properties Testing | Mechanical Properties Testing | Mechanical Properties Testing |
|
| Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
|
| Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
|
| N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
|
| Qualitative/ | Quantitative | Qualitative | Quantitative | Quantitative | Quantitative | Quantitative |
|
| Relative bone mineral density | Callus volume and bone mineral density | Radioactivity in tissues | Deflection under certain load | Strain | Resonant | Wave velocity and modes |
|
| Reparative | Inflammatory | Inflammatory | Reparative | Inflammatory | Inflammatory | Inflammatory |
|
|
Lower resolution contrast in comparison to other radiographic techniques. |
Costly and not widely available. Challenging with the presence of fixations. High radiation dosage for regular usage. |
Images are acquired a few hours after injection. Unreliable with the presence of internal fixations |
May not be acceptable during the early stages of healing due to loading. Not validated in internal fixation devices. |
Suitable for only patients with external fixation. Different results for different fixation systems. | Surrounding soft tissue and joints significantly obscure the readings. | Surrounding soft tissue and joints significantly obscure the readings. |
Figure 1(a) Labelled prototype device and (b) installed prototype device on participant’s knee.
Description of clinical trial procedure in each stage.
| Preliminary Stage | Device Testing Stage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InBody Scan | Manual Measurements | Installation of Device | Testing of Device | |
| Participant maintains test posture on InBody Body Scan to obtain body parameters. | Participant stands upright to acquire thigh circumferences. | Participant lays (supine position) on medical examination bed to measure leg lengths. | Whilst the participant is in supine position, the device is installed on participant’s knee and inflated to 180 mmHg. | Extension rod is struck to obtain 10-spectrum averaging. The pressure cuff is then deflated and removed. This process is repeated 10 times for each leg. |
Descriptive statistics of the relevant body components.
| Height | Lower Thigh Girth | Upper Thigh Girth | Leg Length | Weight | Segmental Lean Leg Mass | Segmental Fat Leg Mass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| cm | cm | cm | cm | kg | kg | kg |
|
| 173.32 | 42.36 | 50.30 | 93.48 | 71.62 | 8.49 | 2.69 |
|
| 163.50 | 33.70 | 43.20 | 87.00 | 51.70 | 5.94 | 1.20 |
|
| 189.20 | 53.00 | 64.00 | 104.00 | 117.20 | 11.89 | 6.10 |
Figure 2Schematic of the mode clusters using DBSCAN projected in two-dimensional space of a leg frequency response.
Twelve modes and their associated modal and system parameters.
| Ω1 | Ω2 | Ω3 | Ω4 | Ω5 | Ω6 | Ω7 | Ω8 | Ω9 | Ω10 | Ω11 | Ω12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.28 | 7.61 | 13.15 | 21.98 | 56.70 | 71.59 | 92.71 | 133.73 | 208.79 | 322.24 | 494.74 | 664.02 | |
| 3.00 | 4.70 | 10.00 | 18.75 | 51.18 | 62.90 | 82.40 | 113.67 | 158.44 | 263.10 | 411.67 | 604.17 | |
| 5.08 | 11.00 | 16.70 | 26.50 | 66.70 | 84.00 | 103.50 | 168.50 | 270.67 | 404.63 | 536.25 | 741.00 | |
| 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 1.69 | 1.91 | 4.66 | 4.34 | 6.40 | 8.99 | 11.94 | 16.08 | |
| −12.5 | −13.8 | −12.4 | −11.7 | −0.3 | −0.8 | −1.4 | −5.3 | −10.1 | −14.9 | −17.8 | −18.8 | |
| 3.71 × 10−3 | 2.88 × 10−3 | 3.48 × 10−3 | 1.92 × 10−3 | 3.44 × 10−2 | 2.53 × 10−2 | 1.85 × 10−2 | 1.04 × 10−2 | 4.11 × 10−3 | 1.23 × 10−3 | 7.31 × 10−4 | 5.31 × 10−4 | |
| 0.87π | 0.65π | 0.75π | 0.92π | 0.87π | 0.82π | 0.73π | 0.69π | 0.59π | 0.64π | 0.60π | 0.53π | |
|
| OOP | Coupled | OOP | OOP | OOP | OOP | Coupled | Coupled | Coupled | Coupled | Coupled | Coupled |
|
| 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
|
| 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.09 |
|
| 33 | 35 | 36 | 7 | 32 | 21 | 16 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 26 | 30 |
Figure 3Spearman’s correlation heat map showing correlation coefficients of significances and (bolded) p < 0.01.
Median values of the body components for observation and no observation groups of , , and with significance (unless indicated otherwise) based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
| GROUP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | 66.3 * | 7.975 ** | - |
|
| - | - | - | - | 72.4 * | 8.77 ** | - | |
|
|
| 173.6 | 43.5 | 51.1 | 95 |
|
| 2.8 ^ |
|
| 169.9 | 42 | 49.1 | 92 |
|
| 1.8 ^ | |
|
|
| - | - | - | - | 64 | 7.975 | - |
|
| - | - | - | - | 73.85 | 8.875 | - |
(bold) p < 0.01; * for weight and ** for segmental lean leg mass for groups of ; ^ for segmental fat leg mass for groups of .
Models for modes 6–11 and their coefficients of variables and constants.
| Modes | Equation |
| Coefficient | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | SE |
| Value | SE |
| ||
|
| |||||||
|
|
| 9.12 | 1.30 |
| −1.23 | 0.33 | 0.001 |
|
| 10.08 | 1.49 |
| −1.41 | 0.38 | 0.002 | |
|
| 8.72 | 1.06 |
| −0.64 | 0.27 | 0.026 | |
|
| |||||||
|
|
| 5.70 | 0.32 |
| −0.37 | 0.14 | 0.019 |
|
| |||||||
|
|
| 5.48 | 0.07 |
| −0.17 | 0.07 | 0.024 |
|
| 5.86 | 0.04 |
| −0.10 | 0.04 | 0.030 | |
Figure 4(a) Graph of predicted and true modal frequencies and (b) graph of standardised residuals against predicted frequency.