Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30409163›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2018

Impact of antagonistic muscle co-contraction on in vivo knee contact forces.

Adam Trepczynski, Ines Kutzner, Verena Schwachmeyer, Markus O Heller, Tilman Pfitzner, Georg N Duda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Lower-limb internal loading and potential consequences for fracture healing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  20. Periarticular muscle status affectsFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Adam TrepczynskiJulius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. adam.trepczynski@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-6341
Ines KutznerJulius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Verena SchwachmeyerJulius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Markus O HellerBioengineering Sciences Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tilman PfitznerCenter for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Georg N DudaJulius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe onset and progression of osteoarthritis, but also the wear and loosening of the components of an artificial joint, are commonly associated with mechanical overloading of the structures. Knowledge of the mechanical forces acting at the joints, together with an understanding of the key factors that can alter them, are critical to develop effective treatments for restoring joint function. While static anatomy is usually the clinical focus, less is known about the impact of dynamic factors, such as individual muscle recruitment, on joint contact forces.

methodsIn this study, instrumented knee implants provided accurate in vivo tibio-femoral contact forces in a unique cohort of 9 patients, which were used as input for subject specific musculoskeletal models, to quantify the individual muscle forces during walking and stair negotiation.

resultsEven between patients with a very similar self-selected gait speed, the total tibio-femoral peak forces varied 1.7-fold, but had only weak correlation with static alignment (varus/valgus). In some patients, muscle co-contraction of quadriceps and gastrocnemii during walking added up to 1 bodyweight (~ 50%) to the peak tibio-femoral contact force during late stance. The greatest impact of co-contraction was observed in the late stance phase of stair ascent, with an increase of the peak tibio-femoral contact force by up to 1.7 bodyweight (66%).

conclusionsTreatment of diseased and failed joints should therefore not only be restricted to anatomical reconstruction of static limb axes alignment. The dynamic activation of muscles, as a key modifier of lower limb biomechanics, should also be taken into account and thus also represents a promising target for restoring function, patient mobility, and preventing future joint failure.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: ID: DRKS00000606 , date: 05.11.2010.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisModels, BiologicalAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFemurGaitHumansKnee JointMaleMechanical PhenomenaMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalQuadriceps MuscleWalkingKnee osteoarthritisMuscle co-contractionMusculoskeletal loading conditions; in vivo joint forces

Identifiers

PMID30409163
PMCPMC6225620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.