An extended OpenSim knee model for analysis of strains of connective tissues

Abstract

BackgroundOpenSim musculoskeletal models provide an accurate simulation environment that eases limitations of in vivo and in vitro studies. In this work, a biomechanical knee model was formulated with femoral articular cartilages and menisci along with 25 connective tissue bundles representing ligaments and capsules. The strain patterns of the connective tissues in the presence of femoral articular cartilage and menisci in the OpenSim knee model was probed in a first of its kind study.MethodsThe effect of knee flexion (0°–120°), knee rotation (− 40° to 30°) and knee adduction (− 15° to 15°) on the anterior cruciate, posterior cruciate, medial collateral, lateral collateral ligaments and other connective tissues were studied by passive simulation. Further, a new parameter for assessment of strain namely, the differential inter-bundle strain of the connective tissues were analyzed to provide new insights for injury kinematics.ResultsACL, PCL, LCL and PL was observed to follow a parabolic strain pattern during flexion while MCL represented linear strain patterns. All connective tissues showed non-symmetric parabolic strain variation during rotation. During adduction, the strain variation was linear for the knee bundles except for FL, PFL and TL.ConclusionsStrains higher than 0.1 were observed in most of the bundles during lateral rotation followed by abduction, medial rotation and adduction. In the case of flexion, highest strains were observed in aACL and aPCL. A combination of strains at a flexion of 0° with medial rotation of 30° or a flexion of 80° with rotation of 30° are evaluated as rupture-prone kinematics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12938-018-0474-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effect of modelling parameters in the development and validation of knee joint models on ligament mechanics: A systematic review

“…According to the quality assessment results presented in Table 2 , several articles had limited modelling technique descriptions [ 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 , 33 ] and validation methods [ 16 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 35 , 37 , 38 ]. In 12 of the selected studies [ 14 – 17 , 20 , 24 – 27 , 31 , 37 , 38 ], the sensitivity of the model outputs on ligament model parameters has not been assessed.…”

“…A range of musculoskeletal modelling software packages has been used across the selected studies ( Fig 2A and Table 3 ). 14 studies [ 15 – 17 , 20 – 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 35 ] used OpenSim [ 39 ], four studies [ 18 , 36 – 38 ] used SIMM [ 40 ], two studies [ 26 , 28 ] used AnyBody Modelling System (AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark), one study [ 30 ] used ADAMS [ 41 ], one study [ 14 ] used SimWise-4D platform (Design Simulation Technologies, DST, Canton, MI, USA), one study [ 19 ] used KneeSIM (LifeModeler Inc., San Clemente, CA), one study [ 33 ] used Musculoskeletal Joint Modeler [ 42 ], and one study [ 31 ] used Working Model 3D (Working Model 3D, MSC, Software Corp., Santa Ana, CA, USA).…”

“…Out of the 25 studies included, 20 studies were designed to simulate the intact knee joint [ 14 – 17 , 19 – 22 , 24 – 27 , 29 – 34 , 37 , 38 ], two studies modelled both intact and ACL-deficient knee [ 35 , 36 ], one study modelled the intact and PCL-deficient knees [ 28 ], one study modelled the ACL-reconstructed knee [ 18 ], and one study modelled the lateral extra-articular reconstructed knee [ 23 ] ( Fig 2B and Table 3 ). Nine studies modelled one leg [ 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 29 – 31 , 33 , 36 ], eight studies developed the whole-body models [ 15 , 16 , 20 , 22 , 26 – 28 , 34 ] and eight studies modelled the lower-body [ 14 , 17 , 18 , 25 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 38 ] ( Fig 2C and Table 3 ).…”

“…These models included geometry from 127 participants/patients’ knees and three cadaveric knees. Intact knee geometries were extracted fully or partially from segmented medical imaging (CT or MRI) of cadaveric specimens [ 25 , 26 , 30 ], participants [ 14 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 29 , 31 , 36 ], patients [ 18 , 22 ], saw bone [ 33 ] or by scaling the generic reference models based on anthropometric data of study participants [ 15 – 17 , 20 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 ] ( Fig 2D and Table 3 ). In the rest of the studies, the geometry was taken from available data in the literature [ 19 , 38 ].…”

On the hindlimb biomechanics of the avian take-off leap

“…Future studies, using XROMM to capture detailed kinematics of passerines should ensure that at least one of the long bones includes at least 3 markers to reduce the reliance on the user during scientific rotoscoping. The simulations here included IER motion of the knee and ankle joints, however the active muscle actuation of these degrees of freedom was not considered in line with previous studies and under the assumption that typically small moments are balanced by passive structures such as ligaments [37,55]. Previous studies reported the take-off velocity of the zebra finch to be around 1.7m/s [2,6] which is faster than the take-off velocity, measured here from the XROMM data which ranged between 1.08-1.39 m/s.…”