2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106408
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biomechanical comparison among five mid/hindfoot arthrodeses procedures in treating flatfoot using a musculoskeletal multibody driven finite element model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
13
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
2
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the authors' view, this difference confirms both procedures presented in the study as adequate treatments. However, the authors' experience is consistent with the prevailing opinion in the literature that talonavicular arthrodesis is the standard of surgical treatment for AAFD [27][28][29][30]. Therefore, radiological results should not be considered in isolation from the clinical outcome.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…In the authors' view, this difference confirms both procedures presented in the study as adequate treatments. However, the authors' experience is consistent with the prevailing opinion in the literature that talonavicular arthrodesis is the standard of surgical treatment for AAFD [27][28][29][30]. Therefore, radiological results should not be considered in isolation from the clinical outcome.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The construction of the flatfoot FE model has been reported in our previous studies ( Peng et al, 2021a ). A young male adult (27 years old, 175 cm height, and 64 kg weight) was recruited for the FE modeling.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the foot muscles forces for the tibialis anterior (38 N), tibialis posterior (200 N), peroneus brevis (1 N), peroneus longus (0 N), Achilles tendon (gastrocnemius and soleus) (774 N), flexor hallucis longus (95 N), and flexor digitorum longus (26 N) were used as inputs to drive the FE model. The musculoskeletal model was adopted to estimate these muscle forces based on the experimental gait data ( Peng et al, 2021a ). These simulations were conducted with Abaqus 6.14 (Dassault Systèmes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) using the standard static solver.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A sensitivity analysis may be conducted to address the variance of model assumption ( Wong et al, 2018 ), while the patient-specific muscle force profile could be obtained by a musculoskeletal model to drive the FE model ( Peng et al, 2021a ). A sensitivity test on the coefficient of friction between bone fragments could enable the quantification of the biomechanical role of the plate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%