Anna Fändriks, Roland Zügner, Bita Shareghi, Johan Kärrholm, Roy Tranberg
{"title":"皮肤和簇标记低估了控制运动时的膝关节屈曲。应用放射立体分析对12例膝关节置换术患者进行评价","authors":"Anna Fändriks, Roland Zügner, Bita Shareghi, Johan Kärrholm, Roy Tranberg","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Diverse marker sets and validation techniques have previously been utilized, posing challenges in comparing studies when assessing soft tissue artefacts in knee joint kinematics from motion analysis. This study aimed to analyse the data obtained from three different marker sets with the results derived from radiostereometric analysis (RSA) in measuring angular movements of the knee joint. Twelve post-knee replacement participants performed a one-leg step-down movement. Knee joint angular movements were analysed in flexion–extension, adduction-abduction, and internal-external rotation across all marker sets. The results were subsequently compared with those obtained from the RSA system using simple linear regression, a linear mixed-effects model, mean values and mean differences. All marker sets were found to systematically underestimate flexion–extension compared to RSA, with differences intensifying at higher knee flexion angles. The mean differences in the sagittal plane between RSA and the IOR marker set, progressively increased from approximately 5° (95% CI 4.3–4.9) to 15° (95% CI 11.6–17.9), reaching a maximum difference of 20° (95% CI 13.8–25.7) at 40° of knee flexion. Transverse and frontal plane data from all marker sets exhibited erratic errors compared to RSA. In summary, knee flexion–extension motions were consistent between marker sets, indicating minimal impact on results based on the marker set choice. However, all marker sets systematically underestimated skeletal motions in knee flexion–extension compared to RSA measurements. Data from the transverse and frontal planes were too inconsistent and therefore not reliable for use.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 112591"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skin and cluster markers underestimate knee flexion during controlled motions. Evaluation of 12 patients with knee arthroplasty using radiosterometric analysis as reference\",\"authors\":\"Anna Fändriks, Roland Zügner, Bita Shareghi, Johan Kärrholm, Roy Tranberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Diverse marker sets and validation techniques have previously been utilized, posing challenges in comparing studies when assessing soft tissue artefacts in knee joint kinematics from motion analysis. This study aimed to analyse the data obtained from three different marker sets with the results derived from radiostereometric analysis (RSA) in measuring angular movements of the knee joint. Twelve post-knee replacement participants performed a one-leg step-down movement. Knee joint angular movements were analysed in flexion–extension, adduction-abduction, and internal-external rotation across all marker sets. The results were subsequently compared with those obtained from the RSA system using simple linear regression, a linear mixed-effects model, mean values and mean differences. All marker sets were found to systematically underestimate flexion–extension compared to RSA, with differences intensifying at higher knee flexion angles. The mean differences in the sagittal plane between RSA and the IOR marker set, progressively increased from approximately 5° (95% CI 4.3–4.9) to 15° (95% CI 11.6–17.9), reaching a maximum difference of 20° (95% CI 13.8–25.7) at 40° of knee flexion. Transverse and frontal plane data from all marker sets exhibited erratic errors compared to RSA. In summary, knee flexion–extension motions were consistent between marker sets, indicating minimal impact on results based on the marker set choice. However, all marker sets systematically underestimated skeletal motions in knee flexion–extension compared to RSA measurements. Data from the transverse and frontal planes were too inconsistent and therefore not reliable for use.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025001022\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025001022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
不同的标记集和验证技术以前已经被使用,在比较研究中提出了挑战,当从运动分析中评估膝关节运动学中的软组织伪影时。本研究旨在分析从三种不同的标记集获得的数据,其结果来自于测量膝关节角运动的放射立体分析(RSA)。12名膝关节置换术后的参与者进行了单腿降压运动。在所有标记组中分析膝关节屈伸、内收外展和内外旋转的角度运动。随后,使用简单线性回归、线性混合效应模型、平均值和均值差,将结果与RSA系统获得的结果进行比较。与RSA相比,所有的标记组都系统性地低估了屈伸,在较高的膝关节屈伸角度时差异加剧。RSA和IOR标记组之间矢状面平均差异逐渐从约5°(95% CI 4.3-4.9)增加到15°(95% CI 11.6-17.9),在膝关节屈曲40°时达到最大差异20°(95% CI 13.8-25.7)。与RSA相比,所有标记集的横向和正面数据都表现出不稳定的误差。总之,膝关节屈伸运动在不同标记组之间是一致的,表明基于标记组选择对结果的影响最小。然而,与RSA测量相比,所有标记集系统地低估了膝关节屈伸的骨骼运动。横切面和额平面的数据太不一致,因此不可靠。
Skin and cluster markers underestimate knee flexion during controlled motions. Evaluation of 12 patients with knee arthroplasty using radiosterometric analysis as reference
Diverse marker sets and validation techniques have previously been utilized, posing challenges in comparing studies when assessing soft tissue artefacts in knee joint kinematics from motion analysis. This study aimed to analyse the data obtained from three different marker sets with the results derived from radiostereometric analysis (RSA) in measuring angular movements of the knee joint. Twelve post-knee replacement participants performed a one-leg step-down movement. Knee joint angular movements were analysed in flexion–extension, adduction-abduction, and internal-external rotation across all marker sets. The results were subsequently compared with those obtained from the RSA system using simple linear regression, a linear mixed-effects model, mean values and mean differences. All marker sets were found to systematically underestimate flexion–extension compared to RSA, with differences intensifying at higher knee flexion angles. The mean differences in the sagittal plane between RSA and the IOR marker set, progressively increased from approximately 5° (95% CI 4.3–4.9) to 15° (95% CI 11.6–17.9), reaching a maximum difference of 20° (95% CI 13.8–25.7) at 40° of knee flexion. Transverse and frontal plane data from all marker sets exhibited erratic errors compared to RSA. In summary, knee flexion–extension motions were consistent between marker sets, indicating minimal impact on results based on the marker set choice. However, all marker sets systematically underestimated skeletal motions in knee flexion–extension compared to RSA measurements. Data from the transverse and frontal planes were too inconsistent and therefore not reliable for use.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.