...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Biomechanics >Validation of the greater trochanter method with radiographic measurements of frontal plane hip joint centers and knee mechanical axis angles and two other hip joint center methods
【24h】

Validation of the greater trochanter method with radiographic measurements of frontal plane hip joint centers and knee mechanical axis angles and two other hip joint center methods

机译:校正额外平面髋关节中心射线测量和膝关节轴角和膝关节轴角和另外两种髋关节中心方法的验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Several motion capture methods exist for predicting hip joint centers (HJC). These methods include regression models, functional joints, and projections from greater trochanters. While regression and functional methods have been compared to imaging techniques, the TROCH method has not been previously validated. The purpose of this study was to compare frontal-plane HJCs and knee mechanical axis angles estimated using the greater trochanter method with a regression (Bell) and a functional method against those obtained using radiographs. Thirty-five participants underwent a long-standing anteroposterior radiograph, and performed static and functional motion capture trials. The Bell, functional, and trochanter HJCs were constructed to predict mechanical axes and compare HJC locations. One-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare mechanical axes and HJC locations estimated by motion capture methods and measured using radiographs (p < 0.05). All methods overestimated mechanical axes compared to radiographs ( < 2 degrees), but were not different. Mediolateral HJC locations and inter-HJC widths were similar between methods; however, inter-HJC widths were underestimated (average 3.7%) compared to radiographs. The Bell HJC was more superior and anterior to both functional and trochanter methods. The trochanter HJC was more posterior to both methods. The Bell method outperformed the other methods in leg length predictions compared to radiographs. Although differences existed between methods, all frontal-plane HJC location differences were < 1.7 cm. This study validated the trochanter HJC prediction method mediolaterally and vertically (with small respective correction factors). Therefore, all HJC methods seem to be viable in predicting mechanical axes and frontal-plane HJC locations compared with radiographs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:存在几种运动捕获方法,用于预测髋关节中心(HJC)。这些方法包括来自更大拖链的回归模型,功能性接头和投影。虽然已经与成像技术进行了比较的回归和功能方法,但是先前尚未验证TroOC方法。本研究的目的是使用具有回归(钟)的更大的Trochanter方法和功能方法比较估计的前平面HJC和膝关节轴角和针对使用射线照相获得的那些。三十五名参与者接受了长期的前期Xco.Noxthighrop,并进行了静态和功能运动捕获试验。构造钟,功能和拖车HJC以预测机械轴并比较HJC位置。单向反复测量ANOVAS用于比较由运动捕获方法估计的机械轴和HJC位置,并使用射线照片测量(P <0.05)。与射线照相(<2度)相比,所有方法均高估机械轴,但不不同。 Mediolateral HJC位置和HJC间宽度在方法之间是相似的;然而,与射线照相相比,HJC间宽度低估(平均3.7%)。贝尔HJC更优越,既函数和拖拉型方法都更加优越和先前。两种方法都是拖把HJC。与射线照片相比,贝尔方法优于腿长预测中的其他方法。虽然方法之间存在差异,但所有的正面HJC位置差异<1.7厘米。该研究验证了脱离子和垂直垂直和垂直(具有小的各自校正因子)的转子HJC预测方法。因此,与X线相比,所有HJC方法似乎在预测机械轴和前平面HJC位置是可行的。 (c)2016 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号