YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Agreement Between Two Methods for Computing the Anterior–Posterior Positions of Native Femoral Condyles Using Three-Dimensional Bone Models With and Without Articular Cartilage and Smoothing

    Source: Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2022:;volume( 144 ):;issue: 009::page 91005-1
    Author:
    Simileysky, Alexander
    ,
    Hull, M. L.
    DOI: 10.1115/1.4053914
    Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    Abstract: Knowledge of anterior–posterior (AP) movement of the femoral condyles on the tibia in healthy knees serves to assess whether an artificial knee restores natural movement. Two methods for identifying AP positions and hence condylar movements include: (1) the flexion facet center (FFC) and (2) the lowest point (LP) methods. The objectives were to determine (1) agreement between the two methods and (2) whether addition of articular cartilage and/or smoothing significantly affects AP positions. Magnetic resonance (MR) images of healthy knees were obtained from eleven subjects, who subsequently performed a dynamic, weight-bearing deep knee bend under fluoroscopy. Four different types of MR models of the distal femur were created: femur, smoothed femur, femur with articular cartilage, and femur with smoothed articular cartilage. In the medial and lateral compartments for the femur with smoothed articular cartilage at 0 deg flexion, mean AP positions of the LPs were 7.7 mm and 5.4 mm more anterior than those of the FFCs, respectively (p <
     
     0.0001, p = 0.0002) and limits of agreement were ±5.5 mm. In the flexion range 30 deg to 90 deg, differences in mean AP positions were 1.5 mm or less and limits of agreement were bounded by ±2.4 mm. Differences in mean AP positions between model types were <
     
    1.3 mm for both LPs and FFCs. Since omitting articular cartilage from three-dimensional (3D) models of the femur minimally affected AP positions, faster and less expensive imaging techniques such as computed-tomography (CT) can be used to generate 3D bone models for kinematic analysis. In addition, the LP method is preferred over the FFC method because of its inherent accuracy in indicating the AP position of the instant center of curvature of the femoral condyles which varies with the knee in extension versus flexion.
     
    • Download: (1.554Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Agreement Between Two Methods for Computing the Anterior–Posterior Positions of Native Femoral Condyles Using Three-Dimensional Bone Models With and Without Articular Cartilage and Smoothing

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4284170
    Collections
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorSimileysky, Alexander
    contributor authorHull, M. L.
    date accessioned2022-05-08T08:39:12Z
    date available2022-05-08T08:39:12Z
    date copyright3/30/2022 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2022
    identifier issn0148-0731
    identifier otherbio_144_09_091005.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4284170
    description abstractKnowledge of anterior–posterior (AP) movement of the femoral condyles on the tibia in healthy knees serves to assess whether an artificial knee restores natural movement. Two methods for identifying AP positions and hence condylar movements include: (1) the flexion facet center (FFC) and (2) the lowest point (LP) methods. The objectives were to determine (1) agreement between the two methods and (2) whether addition of articular cartilage and/or smoothing significantly affects AP positions. Magnetic resonance (MR) images of healthy knees were obtained from eleven subjects, who subsequently performed a dynamic, weight-bearing deep knee bend under fluoroscopy. Four different types of MR models of the distal femur were created: femur, smoothed femur, femur with articular cartilage, and femur with smoothed articular cartilage. In the medial and lateral compartments for the femur with smoothed articular cartilage at 0 deg flexion, mean AP positions of the LPs were 7.7 mm and 5.4 mm more anterior than those of the FFCs, respectively (p <
    description abstract 0.0001, p = 0.0002) and limits of agreement were ±5.5 mm. In the flexion range 30 deg to 90 deg, differences in mean AP positions were 1.5 mm or less and limits of agreement were bounded by ±2.4 mm. Differences in mean AP positions between model types were <
    description abstract1.3 mm for both LPs and FFCs. Since omitting articular cartilage from three-dimensional (3D) models of the femur minimally affected AP positions, faster and less expensive imaging techniques such as computed-tomography (CT) can be used to generate 3D bone models for kinematic analysis. In addition, the LP method is preferred over the FFC method because of its inherent accuracy in indicating the AP position of the instant center of curvature of the femoral condyles which varies with the knee in extension versus flexion.
    publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    titleAgreement Between Two Methods for Computing the Anterior–Posterior Positions of Native Femoral Condyles Using Three-Dimensional Bone Models With and Without Articular Cartilage and Smoothing
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume144
    journal issue9
    journal titleJournal of Biomechanical Engineering
    identifier doi10.1115/1.4053914
    journal fristpage91005-1
    journal lastpage91005-9
    page9
    treeJournal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2022:;volume( 144 ):;issue: 009
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian