Literature DB >> 8163975

Comparison of hip force calculations and measurements in the same patient.

R A Brand1, D R Pedersen, D T Davy, G M Kotzar, K G Heiple, V M Goldberg.   

Abstract

Many investigations report hip-contact-force estimates based either on mathematical models or on the output of instrumented implants. Data from instrumented implants have been consistently lower than mathematical predictions. The authors compared mathematical estimates derived from gait laboratory observations made in a patient with an instrumented hip implant. Appropriate modifications to past models resulted in force predictions that were reasonably similar to the output of the instrumented implant. Peak resultant forces were in the range of 2.5-3.5 body weight during level walking at a freely selected speed, while peak out-of-plane forces ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 body weight. Previous parametric hip-force predictions resulting from mathematically modeled surgical alterations may be high insofar as absolute peak values, but trends are likely correct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8163975     DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90136-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  30 in total

1.  Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads.

Authors:  Benjamin J Fregly; Thor F Besier; David G Lloyd; Scott L Delp; Scott A Banks; Marcus G Pandy; Darryl D D'Lima
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 3.494

Review 2.  How do tissues respond and adapt to stresses around a prosthesis? A primer on finite element stress analysis for orthopaedic surgeons.

Authors:  Richard A Brand; Clark M Stanford; Colby C Swan
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2003

3.  Hip stress reduction after Chiari osteotomy.

Authors:  S Herman; A Jaklic; S Herman; A Iglic; V Kralj-Iglic
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 4.  [Musculoskeletal load analysis. A biomechanical explanation for clinical results--and more?].

Authors:  M O Heller; J H Schröder; G Matziolis; A Sharenkov; W R Taylor; C Perka; G N Duda
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  [Musculoskeletal biomechanics of the knee joint. Principles of preoperative planning for osteotomy and joint replacement].

Authors:  M O Heller; G Matziolis; C König; W R Taylor; S Hinterwimmer; H Graichen; H-C Hege; G Bergmann; C Perka; G N Duda
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Trochanteric advancement in patients with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease does not improve pain or limp.

Authors:  Sun Young Joo; Ki Seok Lee; Il Hyun Koh; Hui Wan Park; Hyun Woo Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-01-25       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Temporal and spatial distributions of directional counterface motion at the acetabular bearing surface in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D R Pedersen; T D Brown; T A Maxian; J J Callaghan
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  1998

Review 8.  Hip replacement in the athlete: is there a role?

Authors:  M J Wilson; R N Villar
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  The 2011 ABJS Nicolas Andry Award: 'Lab'-in-a-knee: in vivo knee forces, kinematics, and contact analysis.

Authors:  Darryl D D'Lima; Shantanu Patil; Nicolai Steklov; Clifford W Colwell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Hip joint contact force in the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) during normal level walking.

Authors:  Jessica E Goetz; Timothy R Derrick; Douglas R Pedersen; Duane A Robinson; Michael G Conzemius; Thomas E Baer; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.