The Morphometry of Soft Tissue Insertions on the Tibial Plateau: Data Acquisition and Statistical Shape Analysis

Zheng, Liying; Harner, Christopher D.; Zhang, Xudong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096515

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the distance between the tibial tunnel center and expected anatomic center of the MM posterior root attachment was approximately 4 mm in transtibial pullout repairs using the specially designed UMR and MMPRT guides ( Table 2). Previous studies demonstrate that an average attachment area of the MM posterior root is 30.4-47.3 mm 2 and the MM posterior root attachment forms an oval or triangular shape [8,[28][29][30]. We consider that the distance of 4mm between tunnel center and anatomic center would be acceptable because the radius of the provisional circle to determine the expected anatomic center was 4-5 mm on 3D CT images (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The accuracy of a newly developed guide system in medial meniscus posterior root repair: a comparison between two aiming guides

Furumatsu

Kodama

Okazaki

et al. 2019

Knee Surg & Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Posterior root repair of the medial meniscus (MM) can prevent rapid progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with a MM posterior root tear (MMPRT). The anatomic reattachment of the MM posterior root is considered to be critical in a transtibial pullout repair. However, tibial tunnel creation at the anatomic attachment is technically difficult. We hypothesized that a newly developed point-contact aiming guide [Unicorn Meniscal Root (UMR) guide] can create the tibial tunnel at a better position rather than a previously designed MMPRT guide. The aim of this study was to compare the position of the created tibial tunnel between the two meniscal root repair guides. Materials and methods: Thirty-eight patients underwent transtibial pullout repairs. Tibial tunnel creation was performed using the UMR guide (19 cases) or MMPRT guide (19 cases). Three-dimensional computed tomography images of the tibial surface were evaluated using the Tsukada's measurement method postoperatively. The expected anatomic center of the MM posterior root attachment was defined as the center of three tangential lines referring to three anatomic bony landmarks (anterior border of the posterior cruciate ligament, lateral margin of the medial tibial plateau, and retro-eminence ridge). The expected anatomic center and tibial tunnel center were evaluated using the percentage-based posterolateral location on the tibial surface. The distance between the anatomic center and tunnel center was calculated. Results: The anatomic center of the MM posterior root footprint was located at a position of 79.2% posterior and 39.5% lateral. The mean of the tunnel center in the UMR guide was similar to that in the MMPRT guide (posterior direction, P = 0.096; lateral direction, P = 0.280). The mean distances between the tunnel center and the anatomic center were 4.06 and 3.99 mm in the UMR and MMPRT guide group, respectively (P = 0.455). Conclusions: The UMR guide, as well as the MMPRT guide, is a useful device to create favorable tibial tunnels at the MM posterior root attachment for pullout repairs in patients with MMPRTs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The accuracy of a newly developed guide system in medial meniscus posterior root repair: a comparison between two aiming guides

Furumatsu

Kodama

Okazaki

et al. 2019

Knee Surg & Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extensive literature exists that describes the positions of knee ligament attachment areas as obtained ex-vivo. Most of the studies focused on ACL and PCL (Doi et al, 2009;Guo et al, 2009;Lorenz et al, 2009;Osti et al, 2012;Piefer et al, 2012;Zheng et al, 2014), whereas few works have dealt with MCLd, MCLs, and LCL (LaPrade et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2010). All these studies aimed to provide surgeons and clinicians with a detailed, although generic, morphological description of the ligament attachment areas required to perform ligament reconstructions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Femur, tibia and fibula bone templates to estimate subject-specific knee ligament attachment site locations

Pillet

Bergamini

Rochcongar

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In-vivo estimates of the positions of knee ligament attachment sites are crucial for subject-specific knee modelling. The present study provides template digital models of femur, tibia and fibula that embed the positions of centroids of the origins and insertions of cruciate and collateral ligaments, along with information on their dispersion related to inter-individual variability. By using a shape transformation procedure of choice, these templates can be made to match anatomical information measured on a subject under analysis. Generic bone digital models of the femur, tibia and fibula were first chosen as bone templates. Ligament attachment areas were accurately identified through dissection on the bones of 11 knee specimens, and marked using radio opaque paint. Digital models of these bones embedding the positions of the centroids of the identified ligament attachment areas were thereafter obtained using medical imaging techniques. These centroids were mapped onto the relevant bone template, thus obtaining a cloud of 11 points for each attachment site, and descriptive statistics of the position of these points were thereafter determined. Dispersion of these positions, essentially due to inter-individual variability, was below 6mm for all attachment areas. The accuracy with which subject-specific ligament attachment site positions may be estimated using the bone template models provided in this paper was also assessed using the above-mentioned 11 specimens data set, and a leave-one-out cross validation approach. Average accuracy was found to be 3.3±1.5mm and 5.8±2.9mm for femoral and tibial/fibular attachment sites, respectively.

show abstract

“…Various methods have been proposed to quantify or mark ligament footprints, including using an optical tracking system 24 , identifying footprints in MR images 12 , and marking footprints with wires 15 and radio-opaque panting 14 before CT scanning. While the optical tracking system allows for accurate recording of footprint locations by precisely pointing to the target positions, extracting the complete bone shapes along with the footprint information can be challenging, particularly when the soft tissues are not entirely removed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of footprints of the canine stifle ligaments using deformable shape templates of bones

Lin,

2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge regarding the ligament footprints in the canine stifle is essential for biomechanical modeling of the joint and patient-specific surgical planning for anatomical ligament reconstruction. The present study aimed to establish and evaluate deformable shape templates (DSTs) of the femur and tibia with footprints of the cruciate and collateral ligaments embedded for the noninvasive estimation of ligament footprint positions. To this end, a data set of computed tomography (CT)-derived surface models of the femur and tibia were established and used to build statistical shape models (SSMs). The contours of the stifle ligaments were obtained from CT scans of 27 hindlimb specimens with radio-opaque markings on the ligament footprints. The DST, constructed by embedding averaged footprint contours into the SSM, was used to estimate subject-specific ligament footprints in a leave-one-out cross-validation framework. The DST predictions were compared with those derived from radio-opaque-marked footprints. The results showed that the averaged Euclidean distances between the estimated and reference footprint centroids were less than 1.2 mm for the cruciate ligaments and 2.0 mm for the collateral ligaments. The DST appeared to provide a feasible alternative approach for noninvasively estimating the footprints of the stifle ligaments in vivo.

show abstract

The Morphometry of Soft Tissue Insertions on the Tibial Plateau: Data Acquisition and Statistical Shape Analysis

Cited by 8 publications

References 47 publications

The accuracy of a newly developed guide system in medial meniscus posterior root repair: a comparison between two aiming guides

The accuracy of a newly developed guide system in medial meniscus posterior root repair: a comparison between two aiming guides

Femur, tibia and fibula bone templates to estimate subject-specific knee ligament attachment site locations

Estimation of footprints of the canine stifle ligaments using deformable shape templates of bones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About