Development and validation of a subject-specific moving-axis tibiofemoral joint model using MRI and EOS imaging during a quasi-static lunge

Abstract

The aims of this study were to introduce and validate a novel computationally-efficient subject-specific tibiofemoral joint model. Subjects performed a quasi-static lunge while micro-dose radiation bi-planar X-rays (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) were captured at roughly 0°, 20°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of tibiofemoral flexion. Joint translations and rotations were extracted from this experimental data through 2D-to-3D bone reconstructions, using an iterative closest point optimization technique, and employed during model calibration and validation. Subject-specific moving-axis and hinge models for comparisons were constructed in the AnyBody Modeling System (AMS) from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-extracted anatomical surfaces and compared against the experimental data. The tibiofemoral axis of the hinge model was defined between the epicondyles while the moving-axis model was defined based on two tibiofemoral flexion angles (0° and 90°) and the articulation modeled such that the tibiofemoral joint axis moved linearly between these two positions as a function of the tibiofemoral flexion. Outside this range, the joint axis was assumed to remain stationary. Overall, the secondary joint kinematics (ML: medial-lateral, AP: anterior-posterior, SI: superior-inferior, IE: internal-external, AA: adduction-abduction) were better approximated by the moving-axis model with mean differences and standard errors of (ML: -1.98 ± 0.37 mm, AP: 6.50 ± 0.82 mm, SI: 0.05 ± 0.20 mm, IE: 0.59 ± 0.36°, AA: 1.90 ± 0.79°) and higher coefficients of determination (R) for each clinical measure. While the hinge model achieved mean differences and standard errors of (ML: -0.84 ± 0.45 mm, AP: 10.11 ± 0.88 mm, SI: 0.66 ± 0.62 mm, IE: -3.17 ± 0.86°, AA: 11.60 ± 1.51°).

Inertial Sensor-Based Lower Limb Joint Kinematics: A Methodological Systematic Review

“…However, smaller joint movement in frontal and transversal planes also occurs and plays a critical role in for example ligament injuries [72][73][74]. Investigation in more complex and even subject-specific tibiofemoral joint models with inertial sensors, may provide highly valuable inside in these secondary joint kinematics for outside laboratory applications [75].…”

Development and Evaluation of a Subject-Specific Lower Limb Model With an Eleven-Degrees-of-Freedom Natural Knee Model Using Magnetic Resonance and Biplanar X-Ray Imaging During a Quasi-Static Lunge

“…The model estimations were evaluated against experimental measures obtained through biplanar X-ray imaging using slot-scanning technology. The specific goals of this study were to: (1) apply a subject-specific MS modeling workflow based on MRI, motion capture, and force plate data to an enhanced inverse dynamic analysis utilizing the FDK method [2], and (2) evaluate the accuracy of the subject-specific MS models performing a lunge against in vivo kinematic data collected during a quasistatic lunge [30].…”

“…On the other hand, fluoroscopy allows for dynamic measurements of in vivo joint kinematics during weight-bearing conditions [27]. Biplanar X-rays systems, such as EOS TM Imaging, utilize slot-scanning technology allowing to perform static measurements of in vivo joint kinematics during weight-bearing conditions with a low radiation dose [28][29][30][31]. It is important to note that kinematic measures obtained from quasi-static biplanar X-ray imaging do not necessarily represent that of dynamic activities [30,31].…”

“…Custom MATLAB code was then used to manually transform the 3D MRI-based bone geometry until its projected contours roughly overlaid the biplane segmented contours. Then, the least-square difference between the biplanar contours and the 3D MRI-based geometry contours was minimized using an iterative closest point (ICP) optimization method [30]. Identical coordinate systems as explained in the preceding section, were created for the 3D bone geometry reconstructions.…”

In Silico-Enhanced Treatment and Rehabilitation Planning for Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders: Can Musculoskeletal Modelling and Dynamic Simulations Really Impact Current Clinical Practice?

“…Additionally, the tibiofemoral joint is often represented as a single DOF hinge joint where kinematic constraints are often used for the remaining DOFs. To overcome these joint model simplifications a number of methods have been proposed to more accurately represent in vivo joint motions [121][122][123][124][125][126]. These simplifications also exist in the upper body where the torso is typically represented as a single unit without muscles and highly simplified articulation not representative for the complexity of spinal movement [49].…”