Abstract

Cadaveric testing is a common approach for verifying mathematical algorithms in computational modeling. In models of total knee replacement (TKR) motion, model inputs commonly include rigid body motions defined using the Grood–Suntay spatial linkage between tibial and femoral components. This approach requires definition of coordinate systems for each rigid TKR component based on fiducial points, manual digitization of a point cloud within the experimental setup, and registration of the orientation relative to bone marker arrays. This study compared variability between two different manual point digitization methods (hand-held stylus and pivot tool each registered in an optical tracking system). This was accomplished by verifying the mathematical algorithm used to calculate the coordinate system from digitized points and quantifying the variability of the digitization methods in a simulated cadaver limb experimental setup. For the hand-held stylus method, the standard deviation was 0.50 mm for the origin and 1.31, 0.51, and 0.62 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. Required digitization of each rigid marker array created additional errors of 0.54 mm for the origin and 1.70, 1.66, and 0.98 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. For the pivot tool method, the standard deviation was 0.35 mm for the origin and 0.37, 1.27, and 1.24 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. In this experimental setup, the pivot tool was the better option for minimizing error while providing repeatable manual digitization of fiducial points and point clouds.

References

1.
Asano
,
H.
,
Hoshino
,
A.
, and
Wilton
,
T. J.
,
2004
, “
Soft-Tissue Tension Total Knee Arthroplasty
,”
J. Arthroplasty
,
19
(
5
), pp.
558
561
.10.1016/j.arth.2004.01.003
2.
Athwal
,
K. K.
,
Hunt
,
N. C.
,
Davies
,
A. J.
,
Deehan
,
D. J.
, and
Amis
,
A. A.
,
2014
, “
Clinical Biomechanics of Instability Related to Total Knee Arthroplasty
,”
Clin. Biomech.
,
29
(
2
), pp.
119
128
.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.11.004
3.
Bei
,
Y.
, and
Fregly
,
B. J.
,
2004
, “
Multibody Dynamic Simulation of Knee Contact Mechanics
,”
Medical Eng. Phys.
,
26
(
9
), pp.
777
789
.10.1016/j.medengphy.2004.07.004
4.
Banks
,
S. A.
, and
Hodge
,
W. A.
,
1996
, “
Accurate Measurement of Three-Dimensional Knee Replacement Kinematics Using Single-Plane Fluoroscopy
,”
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.
,
43
(
6
), pp.
638
649
.10.1109/10.495283
5.
Grood
,
E. S.
, and
Suntay
,
W. J.
,
1983
, “
A Joint Coordinate System for the Clinical Description of Three-Dimensional Motions: Application to the Knee
,”
ASME J. Biomech. Eng.
,
105
(
2
), pp.
136
144
.10.1115/1.3138397
6.
Harman
,
M. K.
,
2007
, “
Spatial Sensors for Quantitative Assessment of Retrieved Arthroplasty Bearings
,”
Ph.D. thesis
,
Clemson University
,
Clemson, SC
.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/80/
7.
Fitzpatrick
,
C. K.
,
Clary
,
C. W.
,
Laz
,
P. J.
, and
Rullkoetter
,
P. J.
,
2012
, “
Relative Contributions of Design, Alignment and Loading Variability in Knee Replacement Mechanics
,”
J. Orthop. Res.
,
30
(
12
), pp.
2015
2024
.10.1002/jor.22169
8.
Fitzpatrick
,
C. K.
,
Clary
,
C. W.
, and
Rullkoetter
,
P. J.
,
2012
, “
The Role of Patient, Surgical, and Implant Design Variations in Total Knee Replacement Performance
,”
J. Biomech.
,
45
(
12
), pp.
2092
2102
.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.05.035
9.
Snethen
,
K.
,
2018
, “
Computational Modeling of Nonlinear Behavior in Orthopaedics
,” Clemson University, accessed Oct. 20, 2020, https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2184
10.
Harris
,
M. D.
,
Cyr
,
A. J.
,
Ali
,
A. A.
,
Fitzpatrick
,
C. K.
,
Rullkoetter
,
P. J.
,
Maletsky
,
L. P.
, and
Shelburne
,
K. B.
,
2016
, “
A Combined Experimental and Computational Approach to Subject-Specific Analysis of Knee Joint Laxity
,”
ASME J. Biomech. Eng.
,
138
(
8
), p.
081004
.10.1115/1.4033882
You do not currently have access to this content.