Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973768›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering online2023

Towards a validated musculoskeletal knee model to estimate tibiofemoral kinematics and ligament strains: comparison of different anterolateral augmentation procedures combined with isolated ACL reconstructions.

Sara Sadat Farshidfar, Joseph Cadman, Thomas Neri, David Parker, Richard Appleyard, Danè Dabirrahmani

Open access · goldFull text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara Sadat FarshidfarMacquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. sara.farshidfar@mq.edu.au.
Joseph CadmanMacquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Thomas NeriSydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Sydney, Australia.
David ParkerSydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Richard AppleyardMacquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Danè DabirrahmaniMacquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUSydney Orthopaedic Research Institute · AUUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

Macquarie University Macquarie University Research Excellence Scheme (MQRES) scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIsolated ACL reconstructions (ACLR) demonstrate limitations in restoring native knee kinematics. This study investigates the knee mechanics of ACLR plus various anterolateral augmentations using a patient-specific musculoskeletal knee model. MATERIALS AND

methodsA patient-specific knee model was developed in OpenSim using contact surfaces and ligament details derived from MRI and CT data. The contact geometry and ligament parameters were varied until the predicted knee angles for intact and ACL-sectioned models were validated against cadaveric test data for that same specimen. Musculoskeletal models of the ACLR combined with various anterolateral augmentations were then simulated. Knee angles were compared between these reconstruction models to determine which technique best matched the intact kinematics. Also, ligament strains calculated by the validated knee model were compared to those of the OpenSim model driven by experimental data. The accuracy of the results was assessed by calculating the normalised RMS error (NRMSE); an NRMSE < 30% was considered acceptable.

resultsAll rotations and translations predicted by the knee model were acceptable when compared to the cadaveric data (NRMSE < 30%), except for the anterior/posterior translation (NRMSE > 60%). Similar errors were observed between ACL strain results (NRMSE > 60%). Other ligament comparisons were acceptable. All ACLR plus anterolateral augmentation models restored kinematics toward the intact state, with ACLR plus anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ACLR + ALLR) achieving the best match and the greatest strain reduction in ACL, PCL, MCL, and DMCL.

conclusionThe intact and ACL-sectioned models were validated against cadaveric experimental results for all rotations. It is acknowledged that the validation criteria are very lenient; further refinement is required for improved validation. The results indicate that anterolateral augmentation moves the kinematics closer to the intact knee state; combined ACLR and ALLR provide the best outcome for this specimen.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionJoint InstabilityAnterior Cruciate LigamentBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverHumansKnee JointRange of Motion, ArticularACL reconstructionAnterolateral ligamentForward dynamicsInverse kinematicsLateral augmentationLigament loadingLigament strainModel validationMusculoskeletal knee modelOpenSim

Identifiers

PMID36973768
PMCPMC10044816
OpenAlexW4360999352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read62
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.