Measurement of joint kinematics using a conventional clinical single‐perspective flat‐panel radiography system

Seslija, Petar; Teeter, Matthew G.; Yuan, Xunhua; Naudie, Douglas D.R.; Bourne, Robert B.; MacDonald, Steven J.; Peters, Terry M.; Holdsworth, David W.

doi:10.1118/1.4752205

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this can ensure that the entire worn region is calculated, it can also include erroneous intersections that occur from imprecision in the tracking of joint motion, and a threshold based on the normalized wear exposure could be set to potentially reduce any such error. Using the previously reported precision of the marker-based tracker technique (Seslija et al 2012), which was ±0.065 mm along the superior-inferior axis and ±0.085 mm along the anterior-posterior axis, the effect of this imprecision could be calculated. The effect was three times greater along the superior-inferior axis as it directly increased penetration (by ±58 mm 3 ) compared to the anterior-posterior axis (by ±16 mm 3 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The TKR phantom was attached to a six axis articulated robot (Model A465 Arm and C500C Controller, Thermo CRS Ltd, ON, Canada) in order to apply motion (Seslija et al 2012). The femur was rigidly attached to the end-effector of the robotic arm, and the tibia was immersed in a low-modulus silicone elastomer gel (Sylgard 527, Dow Corning, MI, USA) affixed to the same rigid base that supported the robotic arm, allowing the tibia to move within a limited range of motion relative to the femur.…”

Section: Dynamic Knee Replacement Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 2D-to-3D registration process requires measuring the centroid of each marker projection within the 2D radiograph, defining projections lines between each measured centroid and the x-ray focal spot, then finally iteratively modifying the pose of the model until the perpendicular distance between each marker and its corresponding projection line is minimized. Custom software, described previously (Seslija et al 2012), was used to calculate the six degree-of-freedom motion of the both femoral and tibial segments from the acquired image sequences. The three-dimensional geometry of the implant components within the same coordinate system as the markers are also required as inputs for the dynamic wear measurement software.…”

Section: Imaging Setup and Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantification ofin vivoimplant wear in total knee replacement from dynamic single plane radiography

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An in vivo method to measure wear in total knee replacements was developed using dynamic single-plane fluoroscopy. A dynamic, anthropomorphic total knee replacement phantom with interchangeable, custom-fabricated components of known wear volume was created, and dynamic imaging was performed. For each frame of the fluoroscopy data, the relative location of the femoral and tibial components were determined, and the apparent intersection of the femoral component with the tibial insert was used to calculate wear volume, wear depth, and frequency of intersection. No difference was found between the measured and true wear volumes. The precision of the measurements was ±39.7 mm(3) for volume and ±0.126 mm for wear depth. The results suggest the system is capable of tracking wear volume changes across multiple time points in patients. As a dynamic technique, this method can provide both kinematic and wear measurements that may be useful for evaluating new implant designs for total knee replacements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dynamic Knee Replacement Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Imaging Setup and Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantification ofin vivoimplant wear in total knee replacement from dynamic single plane radiography

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5–7 Over the past decade, a number of new radiographic techniques have evolved to target specific measures of joint function, implant fixation, and wear using the foundation of those developed in the 1970s. 8–10…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additively manufactured implant components for imaging validation studies

Kleut

Yuan

Athwal

et al. 2018

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiographic imaging is the current standard for evaluating postoperative joint replacements. Prior to application, such imaging methods need to be validated to determine the lower limits of performance under ideal conditions, using either a phantom or cadaver setup. Conventionally manufactured orthopedic implants for use in such studies are not always accessible and may be cost-prohibitive to purchase. We propose the use of additively manufactured implants as a cheaper, more accessible alternative for use in radiographic imaging validation studies. Bias and repeatability were compared between conventionally manufactured and additively manufactured reverse total shoulder implant sets under a standard model-based radiostereometric analysis phantom study environment. Measurements were compared using the humeral stem or glenosphere model relative to reference bone beads, and the humeral stem relative to the glenosphere model to measure implant relative displacement. Compared to the conventionally manufactured implants, the additively manufactured implants had less bias along the internal-external rotation axis (p < 0.001), but greater bias along the abduction-adduction and flexion-extension rotation axes (p = 0.005, 0.011). Additively manufactured implants had greater repeatability along the internal-external rotation axis (p < 0.001), but worse repeatability along the medial-lateral translation axis (p = 0.001) and the abduction-adduction rotation axis (p < 0.001). Differences were on the orders of 0.01 mm and 0.5°. For the purpose of validating two-dimensional-three-dimensional radiographic imaging techniques of orthopedic implants, additively manufactured implants can be used in place of conventionally manufactured implants, assuming they are fabricated to the manufacturer's specifications. Observed differences were within the errors of the measurement technique and not clinically meaningful.

show abstract

Measurement of joint kinematics using a conventional clinical single‐perspective flat‐panel radiography system

Cited by 2 publications

References 61 publications

Quantification ofin vivoimplant wear in total knee replacement from dynamic single plane radiography

Quantification ofin vivoimplant wear in total knee replacement from dynamic single plane radiography

Additively manufactured implant components for imaging validation studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About