Development and Validation of a Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Model of the Lower Extremity

Asfour, Shihab; Eltoukhy, Moataz

doi:10.5772/24156

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall objective of this study was to present a FE model of the lower limb considering the muscle forces in a detailed manner. The selected muscle forces reflect the stance phase of the gait and were calculated by a validated musculoskeletal RB model of the human body that is present in the repository of the musculoskeletal modelling software AnyBody [ 13 – 15 , 23 ]. The predicted knee joint forces by means of the used musculoskeletal RB model were similar to the measured knee contact forces from the works of Bergmann et al (file K7L_280710_1_28P of the patient K7L from database OrthoLoad) [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The model “GaitFullbody” considers the normal gait of a person with a mass of about 62 kg and a height of 1.62 m. This model is derived from previous musculoskeletal models that have already been validated. The validation of the previous musculoskeletal models was made by comparing the predicted hip joint forces to the measured joint forces [ 13 – 15 ]. The knee joint being of interest for the present model, the experimental measured knee contact forces from the works of Bergmann et al (file K7L_280710_1_28P from database OrthoLoad [ 12 ]) were compared to the knee joint forces of the “Gaitfullbody” model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Muscle forces are not measurable in vivo, but contact forces in the joints are measurable by means of telemetric instrumentation [ 8 – 12 ]. Although these joint contact forces are quantitatively different from one author to another, they are generally used to validate musculoskeletal models, which are used to predict muscle forces [ 13 – 16 ]. Kutzner et al [ 11 ] reported a maximal difference of 100% BW between the resultants of the knee joint forces measured during walking in five different subjects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kutzner et al [ 11 ] reported a maximal difference of 100% BW between the resultants of the knee joint forces measured during walking in five different subjects. The musculoskeletal models are rigid body (RB) models [ 13 – 15 ] or coupled RB/deformable models. For the latter soft tissues within the joints are often modelled as deformable bodies, keeping the bones rigid as it is the case for musculoskeletal RB models [ 16 – 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A finite element model of the lower limb during stance phase of gait cycle including the muscle forces

Kaze

Maas

Arnoux³

et al. 2017

BioMed Eng OnLine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResults of finite element (FE) analyses can give insight into musculoskeletal diseases if physiological boundary conditions, which include the muscle forces during specific activities of daily life, are considered in the FE modelling. So far, many simplifications of the boundary conditions are currently made. This study presents an approach for FE modelling of the lower limb for which muscle forces were included.MethodsThe stance phase of normal gait was simulated. Muscle forces were calculated using a musculoskeletal rigid body (RB) model of the human body, and were subsequently applied to a FE model of the lower limb. It was shown that the inertial forces are negligible during the stance phase of normal gait. The contact surfaces between the parts within the knee were modelled as bonded. Weak springs were attached to the distal tibia for numerical reasons.ResultsHip joint reaction forces from the RB model and those from the FE model were similar in magnitude with relative differences less than 16%. The forces of the weak spring were negligible compared to the applied muscle forces. The maximal strain was 0.23% in the proximal region of the femoral diaphysis and 1.7% in the contact zone between the tibia and the fibula.ConclusionsThe presented approach based on FE modelling by including muscle forces from inverse dynamic analysis of musculoskeletal RB model can be used to perform analyses of the lower limb with very realistic boundary conditions. In the present form, this model can be used to better understand the loading, stresses and strains of bones in the knee area and hence to analyse osteotomy fixation devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A finite element model of the lower limb during stance phase of gait cycle including the muscle forces

Kaze

Maas

Arnoux³

et al. 2017

BioMed Eng OnLine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more detailed description of the modelling methods of the present finite element models of the lower limb was published in a previous study (Diffo Kaze et al 2017). The muscle forces acting in the lower limb during normal gait were calculated by means of a validated musculoskeletal rigid body (MRB) model (Manders et al 2008;Thielen 2009;Asfour and Eltoukhy 2011) This MRB model, namely the Gaitfullbody model, is available in the model repository of the musculoskeletal modelling software AnyBody version 6 (AnyBody Technology 2014). The knee joint in the MRB was modelled as a revolute joint that was located in the middle of the transepicondylar axis.…”

Section: Loading Boundary Conditions and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical comparative study of five currently used implants for high tibial osteotomy: realistic loading including muscle forces versus simplified experimental loading

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany different fixation devices are used to maintain the correction angle after medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO). Each device must provide at least sufficient mechanical stability to avoid loss of correction and unwanted fracture of the contralateral cortex until the bone heals. In the present study, the mechanical stability of following different implants was compared: the TomoFix small stature (sm), the TomoFix standard (std), the Contour Lock, the iBalance and the second generation PEEKPower. Simplified loading, usually consisting of a vertical load applied to the tibia plateau, is used for experimental testing of fixation devices and also in numerical studies. Therefore, this study additionally compared this simplified experimental loading with a more realistic loading that includes the muscle forces.MethodTwo types of finite element models, according to the considered loading, were created. The first type numerically simulated the static tests of MOWHTO implants performed in a previous experimental biomechanical study, by applying a vertical compressive load perpendicularly to the plateau of the osteotomized tibia. The second type included muscle forces in finite element models of the lower limb with osteotomized tibiae and simulated the stance phase of normal gait. Section forces in the models were determined and compared. Stresses in the implants and contralateral cortex, and micromovements of the osteotomy wedge, were calculated.ResultsFor both loading types, the stresses in the implants were lower than the threshold values defined by the material strength. The stresses in the lateral cortex were smaller than the ultimate tensile strength of the cortical bone. The implants iBalance and Contour Lock allowed the smallest micromovements of the wedge, while the PEEKPower allowed the highest. There was a correlation between the micromovements of the wedge, obtained for the simplified loading of the tibia, and the more realistic loading of the lower limb at 15% of the gait cycle (Pearson’s value r = 0.982).ConclusionsAn axial compressive load applied perpendicularly to the tibia plateau, with a magnitude equal to the first peak value of the knee joint contact forces, corresponds quite well to a realistic loading of the tibia during the stance phase of normal gait (at 15% of the gait cycle and a knee flexion of about 22 degrees). However, this magnitude of the knee joint contact forces overloads the tibia compared to more realistic calculations, where the muscle forces are considered. The iBalance and Contour Lock implants provide higher rigidity to the bone-implant constructs compared to the TomoFix and the PEEKPower plates.

show abstract

Clinical Gait Analysis and Musculoskeletal Modeling

Tecante

Seehaus

Welke

et al. 2013

3D Multiscale Physiological Human

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development and Validation of a Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Model of the Lower Extremity

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

A finite element model of the lower limb during stance phase of gait cycle including the muscle forces

A finite element model of the lower limb during stance phase of gait cycle including the muscle forces

Numerical comparative study of five currently used implants for high tibial osteotomy: realistic loading including muscle forces versus simplified experimental loading

Clinical Gait Analysis and Musculoskeletal Modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About