首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Accuracy of Functional and Predictive Methods to Calculate the Hip Joint Center in Young Non-pathologic Asymptomatic Adults with Dual Fluoroscopy as a Reference Standard
【2h】

Accuracy of Functional and Predictive Methods to Calculate the Hip Joint Center in Young Non-pathologic Asymptomatic Adults with Dual Fluoroscopy as a Reference Standard

机译:以双荧光透视为参考标准的功能和预测方法的准确性以计算年轻的非病理性无症状成年人的髋关节中心

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Predictions from biomechanical models of gait may be sensitive to joint center locations. Most often, the hip joint center (HJC) is derived from locations of reflective markers adhered to the skin. Here, predictive techniques use regression equations of pelvic anatomy to estimate the HJC, whereas functional methods track motion of markers placed at the pelvis and femur during a coordinated motion. Skin motion artifact may introduce errors in the estimate of HJC for both techniques. Quantifying the accuracy of these methods is an area of open investigation. In this study, we used dual fluoroscopy (DF) (a dynamic x-ray imaging technique) and three-dimensional reconstructions from computed tomography (CT) images, to measure HJC locations in-vivo. Using dual fluoroscopy as the reference standard, we then assessed the accuracy of three predictive and two functional methods. Eleven non-pathologic subjects were imaged with DF and reflective skin marker motion capture. Additionally, DF-based solutions generated virtual markers placed on bony landmarks, which were input to the predictive and functional methods to determine if estimates of the HJC improved. Using skin markers, functional methods had better mean agreement with the HJC measured by DF (11.0 ± 3.3 mm) than predictive methods (18.1 ± 9.5 mm); estimates from functional and predictive methods improved when using the DF-based solutions (1.3 ± 0.9 and 17.5 ± 8.6 mm, respectively). The Harrington method was the best predictive technique using both skin markers (13.2 ± 6.5 mm) and DF-based solutions (10.6 ± 2.5 mm). The two functional methods had similar accuracy using skin makers (11.1 ± 3.6 and 10.8 ± 3.2 mm) and DF-based solutions (1.2 ± 0.8 and 1.4 ± 1.0 mm). Overall, functional methods were superior to predictive methods for HJC estimation. However, the improvements observed when using the DF-based solutions suggest that skin motion artifact is a large source of error for the functional methods.
机译:步态生物力学模型的预测可能对关节中心位置敏感。最常见的是,髋关节中心(HJC)来自粘附在皮肤上的反射标记的位置。在这里,预测技术使用骨盆解剖的回归方程来估计HJC,而功能方法则是在协调运动过程中跟踪放置在骨盆和股骨上的标志物的运动。对于这两种技术,皮肤运动伪影可能会在HJC的估计中引入误差。量化这些方法的准确性是一个公开研究的领域。在这项研究中,我们使用了双重荧光透视(DF)(动态X射线成像技术)和计算机断层扫描(CT)图像的三维重建,以测量HJC在体内的位置。使用双重荧光检查作为参考标准,然后评估三种预测方法和两种功能方法的准确性。用DF和反射性皮肤标志物运动捕捉对11名非病理性受试者进行了成像。此外,基于DF的解决方案生成了放置在骨标志上的虚拟标记,这些标记被输入到预测方法和功能方法中,以确定HJC的估计是否得到改善。使用皮肤标记,功能性方法与用DF测得的HJC的均值一致性(11.0±3.3 mm)比预测性方法(18.1±9.5 mm)更好。使用基于DF的解决方案(分别为1.3±0.9和17.5±8.6 mm)时,功能和预测方法的估计值得到了改进。 Harrington方法是同时使用皮肤标记物(13.2±6.5 mm)和基于DF的溶液(10.6±2.5 mm)的最佳预测技术。这两种功能方法在使用制皮机(11.1±3.6和10.8±3.2 mm)和基于DF的溶液(1.2±0.8和1.4±1.0 mm)时具有相似的精度。总体而言,功能方法优于HJC估计的预测方法。但是,使用基于DF的解决方案时观察到的改进表明,皮肤运动伪影是功能方法的主要错误来源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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