ArticleBiomedical engineering online2024
Modeling of the native knee with kinematic data derived from experiments using the VIVO™ joint simulator: a feasibility study.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review and guide for in vitro healthy human knee joint laxity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite advances in total knee arthroplasty, many patients are still unsatisfied with the functional outcome. Multibody simulations enable a more efficient exploration of independent variables compared to experimental studies. However, to what extent numerical models can fully reproduce knee joint kinematics is still unclear. Hence, models must be validated with different test scenarios before being applied to biomechanical questions.
methodsIn our feasibility study, we analyzed a human knee specimen on a six degree of freedom joint simulator, applying a passive flexion and different laxity tests with sequential states of ligament resection while recording the joint kinematics. Simultaneously, we generated a subject-specific multibody model of the native tibiofemoral joint considering ligaments and contact between articulating cartilage surfaces.
resultsOur experimental data on the sequential states of ligament resection aligned well with the literature. The model-based knee joint kinematics during passive flexion showed good agreement with the experiment, with root-mean-square errors of less than 1.61 mm for translations and 2.1° for knee joint rotations. During laxity tests, the experiment measured up to 8 mm of anteroposterior laxity, while the numerical model allowed less than 3 mm.
conclusionAlthough the multibody model showed good agreement to the experimental kinematics during passive flexion, the validation showed that ligament parameters used in this feasibility study are too stiff to replicate experimental laxity tests correctly. Hence, more precise subject-specific ligament parameters have to be identified in the future through model optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.