Validation of Inertial-Measurement-Unit-Based Ex Vivo Knee Kinematics during a Loaded Squat before and after Reference-Frame-Orientation Optimisation.

Recently, inertial measurement units have been gaining popularity as a potential alternative to optical motion capture systems in the analysis of joint kinematics. In a previous study, the accuracy of knee joint angles calculated from inertial data and an extended Kalman filter and smoother algorithm was tested using ground truth data originating from a joint simulator guided by fluoroscopy-based signals. Although high levels of accuracy were achieved, the experimental setup leveraged multiple iterations of the same movement pattern and an absence of soft tissue artefacts. Here, the algorithm is tested against an optical marker-based system in a more challenging setting, with single iterations of a loaded squat cycle simulated on seven cadaveric specimens on a force-controlled knee rig. Prior to the optimisation of local coordinate systems using the REference FRame Alignment MEthod (REFRAME) to account for the effect of differences in local reference frame orientation, root-mean-square errors between the kinematic signals of the inertial and optical systems were as high as 3.8° ± 3.5° for flexion/extension, 20.4° ± 10.0° for abduction/adduction and 8.6° ± 5.7° for external/internal rotation. After REFRAME implementation, however, average root-mean-square errors decreased to 0.9° ± 0.4° and to 1.5° ± 0.7° for abduction/adduction and for external/internal rotation, respectively, with a slight increase to 4.2° ± 3.6° for flexion/extension. While these results demonstrate promising potential in the approach's ability to estimate knee joint angles during a single loaded squat cycle, they highlight the limiting effects that a reduced number of iterations and the lack of a reliable consistent reference pose inflicts on the sensor fusion algorithm's performance. They similarly stress the importance of adapting underlying assumptions and correctly tuning filter parameters to ensure satisfactory performance. More importantly, our findings emphasise the notable impact that properly aligning reference-frame orientations before comparing joint kinematics can have on results and the conclusions derived from them.

The effect of a collar on primary stability of standard and undersized cementless hip stems: a biomechanical study.

INTRODUCTION: Aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures are main reasons for revision after THA. Quite different from most other stem systems, Corail cementless hip stems show better survival rates than their cemented counterpart, which can possibly be explained by the use of a collar. The study aimed to investigate primary stability with standard and undersized hip stems both collared and collarless. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Primary stability of cementless, collared and collarless, femoral stems was measured in artificial bones using both undersized and standard size. After preconditioning, 3D micromotion was measured under cyclic loading at the bone-implant interface. RESULTS: The use of a collar resulted in higher micromotion within the same stem size but showed no statistically significant difference for both standard and undersized hip stems. The collared and collarless undersized stems showed no significant differences in 3D micromotion at the upper measuring positions compared to the standard stem size. Micromotion was significantly higher in the distal measuring positions, with and without collar, for the undersized stems (vs. standard collarless stem size). CONCLUSION: The key finding is that the collarless and collared Corail hip stems, within one stem size, showed no significant differences in primary stability. Undersized stems showed significantly higher micromotion in the distal area both with and without collar.

Uncemented hip revision cup as an alternative for T-type acetabular fractures: A cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND: The current rise in elderly patients with compromised bone quality complicates the surgical treatment of acetabular T-type fractures (AO type 62B2 fractures). There is on ongoing discussion about the treatment options, mostly consisting of an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with or without primary or secondary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Yet, these patients are oftentimes unable to fulfil weight-bearing restrictions and mostly present with an unavailability of a stable anchor site. Consequently, this study investigates the feasibility of a cementless hip revision cup for acetabular T-type fractures and compares its biomechanical properties to ORIF. HYPOTHESIS: The cementless hip revision cup provides sufficient biomechanical stability under the simulation of full weight-bearing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study compared two groups of human cadaveric hip bones with T-type fractures, of whom 6 subjects were treated with ORIF (6 male; mean age: 62±17years; mean body weight: 75±15) versus 6 subjects treated with a cementless hip revision cup (2 male; 69±12 years; 73±15kg). The group-assignment was controlled for comparable BMD results (mean BMD: ORIF 110±37 mg Ca-Ha/mL versus hip revision cup 134±32 mg Ca-Ha/mL). To compare for biomechanical stability cyclic loading was applied measuring the force and dislocation of the fracture gap at standardized bone loci using an all-electric testing machine and a 3D-ultrasound measuring system. RESULTS: Comparing superior pubic ramus versus iliac wing (cementless hip revision cup versus ORIF [mean±standard deviation]: 5.8±2.0 versus 7.0±3.2; p=0.032) as well as sacral ala versus iliac wing (4.6±2.2 versus 6.4±3.7; p=0.002), the cementless revision cup achieved a significantly higher stability than the plate osteosynthesis. CONCLUSION: Revision cup and ORIF withstood biomechanical loading forces exceeding full weight-bearing in this biomechanical study. The results of our study suggest that the cementless hip revision cup might be promising alternative to the current standard care of ORIF with or without primary THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case control experimental study.

[Numerical simulation in musculoskeletal biomechanics : Application perspectives and possibilities]. / Numerische Simulation in der muskuloskelettalen Biomechanik : Anwendungsperspektiven und Möglichkeiten.

BACKGROUND: Computational research methods, such as finite element analysis (FEA) and musculoskeletal multi-body simulation (MBS), are important in musculoskeletal biomechanics because they enable a better understanding of the mechanics of the musculoskeletal system, as well as the development and evaluation of orthopaedic implants. These methods are used to analyze clinically relevant issues in various anatomical regions, such as the hip, knee, shoulder joints and spine. Preoperative simulation can improve surgical planning in orthopaedics and predict individual results. EXAMPLES FROM PRACTICE: In this article, the methods of FE analysis and MBS are explained using two practical examples, and the activities of the "Numerical Simulation" cluster of the "Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Network (MSB-NET)" are presented in more detail. An outlook classifies numerical simulation in the age of artificial intelligence and draws attention to the relevance of simulation in the (re)approval of implants.