This experimental study demonstrated that 15° IR of the tibial shaft increased contact pressure and 15° ER decreased contact pressure over the knee medial compartment.
The current study demonstrated partial fibulectomy at 12 cm above lateral malleolus results in decreasing pressure in knee medial compartment and increasing pressure in knee lateral compartment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical importance of partial fibulectomy.
Background The ligaments in the knee are prone to injury especially during dynamic activities. The resulting instability can have a profound impact on a patient’s daily activities and functional capacity. Musculoskeletal knee modelling provides a non-invasive tool for investigating ligament force-strain behaviour in various dynamic scenarios, as well as potentially complementing existing pre-planning tools to optimise surgical reconstructions. However, despite the development and validation of many musculoskeletal knee models, the effect of modelling parameters on ligament mechanics has not yet been systematically reviewed. Objectives This systematic review aimed to investigate the results of the most recent studies using musculoskeletal modelling techniques to create models of the native knee joint, focusing on ligament mechanics and modelling parameters in various simulated movements. Data sources PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Databases were searched for articles containing any numerical ligament strain or force data on the intact, ACL-deficient, PCL-deficient, or lateral extra-articular reconstructed (LER) knee joints. The studies had to derive these results from musculoskeletal modelling methods. The dates of the publications were between 1 January 1995 and 30 November 2021. Method A customised data extraction form was created to extract each selected study’s critical musculoskeletal model development parameters. Specific parameters of the musculoskeletal knee model development used in each eligible study were independently extracted, including the (1) musculoskeletal model definition (i.e., software used for modelling, knee type, source of geometry, the inclusion of cartilage and menisci, and articulating joints and joint boundary conditions (i.e., number of degrees of freedom (DoF), subjects, type of activity, collected data and type of simulation)), (2) specifically ligaments modelling techniques (i.e., ligament bundles, attachment points, pathway, wrapping surfaces and ligament material properties such as stiffness and reference length), (3) sensitivity analysis, (4) validation approaches, (5) predicted ligament mechanics (i.e., force, length or strain) and (6) clinical applications if available. The eligible papers were then discussed quantitatively and qualitatively with respect to the above parameters. Results and discussion From the 1004 articles retrieved by the initial electronic search, only 25 met all inclusion criteria. The results obtained by aggregating data reported in the eligible studies indicate that considerable variability in the predicted ligament mechanics is caused by differences in geometry, boundary conditions and ligament modelling parameters. Conclusion This systematic review revealed that there is currently a lack of consensus on knee ligament mechanics. Despite this lack of consensus, some papers highlight the potential of developing translational tools using musculoskeletal modelling. Greater consistency in model design, incorporation of sensitivity assessment of the model outcomes and more rigorous validation methods should lead to better agreement in predictions for ligament mechanics between studies. The resulting confidence in the musculoskeletal model outputs may lead to the development of clinical tools that could be used for patient-specific treatments.
Background Isolated ACL reconstructions (ACLR) demonstrate limitations in restoring native knee kinematics. This study investigates the knee mechanics of ACLR plus various anterolateral augmentations using a patient-specific musculoskeletal knee model. Materials and methods A patient-specific knee model was developed in OpenSim using contact surfaces and ligament details derived from MRI and CT data. The contact geometry and ligament parameters were varied until the predicted knee angles for intact and ACL-sectioned models were validated against cadaveric test data for that same specimen. Musculoskeletal models of the ACLR combined with various anterolateral augmentations were then simulated. Knee angles were compared between these reconstruction models to determine which technique best matched the intact kinematics. Also, ligament strains calculated by the validated knee model were compared to those of the OpenSim model driven by experimental data. The accuracy of the results was assessed by calculating the normalised RMS error (NRMSE); an NRMSE < 30% was considered acceptable. Results All rotations and translations predicted by the knee model were acceptable when compared to the cadaveric data (NRMSE < 30%), except for the anterior/posterior translation (NRMSE > 60%). Similar errors were observed between ACL strain results (NRMSE > 60%). Other ligament comparisons were acceptable. All ACLR plus anterolateral augmentation models restored kinematics toward the intact state, with ACLR plus anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ACLR + ALLR) achieving the best match and the greatest strain reduction in ACL, PCL, MCL, and DMCL. Conclusion The intact and ACL-sectioned models were validated against cadaveric experimental results for all rotations. It is acknowledged that the validation criteria are very lenient; further refinement is required for improved validation. The results indicate that anterolateral augmentation moves the kinematics closer to the intact knee state; combined ACLR and ALLR provide the best outcome for this specimen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.