In-vivo quantification of dynamic hip joint center errors and soft tissue artifact.

Niccolo M Fiorentino, Penny R Atkins, Michael J Kutschke, K Bo Foreman, Andrew E Anderson
Author Information
  1. Niccolo M Fiorentino: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
  2. Penny R Atkins: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Room 3100, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
  3. Michael J Kutschke: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
  4. K Bo Foreman: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, 520 Wakara Way, Suite 240, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
  5. Andrew E Anderson: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Room 3100, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, 520 Wakara Way, Suite 240, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, 72 S Central Campus Drive, Room 3750, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Electronic address: Andrew.Anderson@hsc.utah.edu.

Abstract

Hip joint center (HJC) measurement error can adversely affect predictions from biomechanical models. Soft tissue artifact (STA) may exacerbate HJC errors during dynamic motions. We quantified HJC error and the effect of STA in 11 young, asymptomatic adults during six activities. Subjects were imaged simultaneously with reflective skin markers (SM) and dual fluoroscopy (DF), an x-ray based technique with submillimeter accuracy that does not suffer from STA. Five HJCs were defined from locations of SM using three predictive (i.e., based on regression) and two functional methods; these calculations were repeated using the DF solutions. Hip joint center motion was analyzed during six degrees-of-freedom (default) and three degrees-of-freedom hip joint kinematics. The position of the DF-measured femoral head center (FHC), served as the reference to calculate HJC error. The effect of STA was quantified with mean absolute deviation. HJC errors were (mean±SD) 16.6±8.4mm and 11.7±11.0mm using SM and DF solutions, respectively. HJC errors from SM measurements were all significantly different from the FHC in at least one anatomical direction during multiple activities. The mean absolute deviation of SM-based HJCs was 2.8±0.7mm, which was greater than that for the FHC (0.6±0.1mm), suggesting that STA caused approximately 2.2mm of spurious HJC motion. Constraining the hip joint to three degrees-of-freedom led to approximately 3.1mm of spurious HJC motion. Our results indicate that STA-induced motion of the HJC contributes to the overall error, but inaccuracies inherent with predictive and functional methods appear to be a larger source of error.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Biomech. 2014 Jun;30(3):461-70 [PMID: 24584728]
  2. J Biomech Eng. 2006 Aug;128(4):604-9 [PMID: 16813452]
  3. J Biomech. 2007;40(3):595-602 [PMID: 16584737]
  4. J Biomech. 2011 Apr 29;44(7):1400-4 [PMID: 21334628]
  5. J Biomech. 2005 Jan;38(1):107-16 [PMID: 15519345]
  6. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999 May;14 (4):227-35 [PMID: 10619110]
  7. Gait Posture. 2014;40(1):20-5 [PMID: 24631279]
  8. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Feb;61(2):362-7 [PMID: 24058006]
  9. J Biomech. 2007;40(6):1228-34 [PMID: 16876805]
  10. Gait Posture. 2011 Jul;34(3):324-8 [PMID: 21715169]
  11. J Biomech. 1993 Apr-May;26(4-5):485-99 [PMID: 8478351]
  12. Gait Posture. 2015 Sep;42(3):402-5 [PMID: 26215642]
  13. J Biomech. 2016 Jun 14;49(9):1658-69 [PMID: 27139005]
  14. J Biomech. 2006;39(6):1096-106 [PMID: 16549099]
  15. Gait Posture. 2016 Feb;44:48-54 [PMID: 27004632]
  16. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1998 Dec;25(12):1032-7 [PMID: 9888002]
  17. Gait Posture. 2005 Oct;22(2):138-45 [PMID: 16139749]
  18. Gait Posture. 2010 Jun;32(2):231-6 [PMID: 20547061]
  19. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 Jul;44(7):2168-80 [PMID: 26645080]
  20. J Biomech. 2000 Nov;33(11):1479-87 [PMID: 10940407]
  21. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010 Feb;38(2):269-79 [PMID: 19957039]
  22. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 Nov;54(11):1940-50 [PMID: 18018689]
  23. J Biomech. 1990;23 (6):617-21 [PMID: 2341423]
  24. J Biomech. 2009 Jun 19;42(9):1246-51 [PMID: 19464012]
  25. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2015 Aug;18(11):1238-1251 [PMID: 24641349]
  26. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 May;30(4):319-29 [PMID: 25753697]
  27. J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8 [PMID: 11934426]
  28. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013 Jun;41(6):1162-71 [PMID: 23413103]

Grants

  1. R21 AR063844/NIAMS NIH HHS
  2. UL1 RR025764/NCRR NIH HHS
  3. F32 AR067075/NIAMS NIH HHS
  4. S10 RR026565/NCRR NIH HHS
  5. UL1 TR000105/NCATS NIH HHS
  6. UL1 TR001067/NCATS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Artifacts
Biomechanical Phenomena
Female
Femur Head
Fluoroscopy
Gait
Hip Joint
Humans
Male
Motion
Pelvic Bones
Radiography
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0HJCjointcentererrorSTAerrorsSMmotionhipHipDFusingthreedegrees-of-freedomFHCtissueartifactdynamicquantifiedeffect11sixactivitiesfluoroscopybasedHJCspredictivefunctionalmethodssolutionsmeanabsolutedeviation21mmapproximatelyspuriousmeasurementcanadverselyaffectpredictionsbiomechanicalmodelsSoftmayexacerbatemotionsyoungasymptomaticadultsSubjectsimagedsimultaneouslyreflectiveskinmarkersdualx-raytechniquesubmillimeteraccuracysufferFivedefinedlocationsieregressiontwocalculationsrepeatedanalyzeddefaultkinematicspositionDF-measuredfemoralheadservedreferencecalculatemean±SD166±84mm7±110mmrespectivelymeasurementssignificantlydifferentleastoneanatomicaldirectionmultipleSM-based8±07mmgreater06±0suggestingcaused2mmConstrainingled3resultsindicateSTA-inducedcontributesoverallinaccuraciesinherentappearlargersourceIn-vivoquantificationsoftBiomechanicalmodelDualFemurFunctionalcentrePelvis

Similar Articles

Cited By