This article presents the validation of a technique to assess the appropriateness of a 2 degree-of-freedom model for the human knee, and, in which case, the dominant axes of flexion/extension and internal/external longitudinal rotation are estimated. The technique relies on the use of an instrumented spatial linkage for the accurate detection of passive knee kinematics, and it is based on the assumption that points on the longitudinal rotation axis describe nearly circular and planar trajectories, whereas the flexion/extension axis is perpendicular to those trajectories through their centers of rotation. By manually enforcing a tibia rotation while bending the knee in flexion, a standard optimization algorithm is used to estimate the approximate axis of longitudinal rotation, and the axis of flexion is estimated consequently. The proposed technique is validated through simulated data and experimentally applied on a 2 degree-of-freedom mechanical joint. A procedure is proposed to verify the fixed axes assumption for the knee model. The suggested methodology could be possibly valuable in understanding knee kinematics, and in particular for the design and implant of customized hinged external fixators, which have shown to be effective in knee dislocation treatment and rehabilitation.
Aaron Chin, David Lloyd, Jacqueline Alderson, Bruce Elliott and Peter Mills
The predominance of upper-limb elbow models have been based on earlier lower-limb motion analysis models. We developed and validated a functionally based 2 degree-of-freedom upper-limb model to measure rotations of the forearm using a marker-based approach. Data were collected from humans and a mechanical arm with known axes and ranges of angular motion in 3 planes. This upper-limb model was compared with an anatomically based model following the proposed ISB standardization. Location of the axes of rotation relative to each other was determined in vivo. Data indicated that the functional model was not influenced by cross-talk from adduction-abduction, accurately measuring flexion-extension and pronation-supination. The functional flexion-extension axis in vivo is angled at 6.6° to the anatomical line defined from the humeral medial to lateral epicondyles. The pronation-supination axis intersected the anatomically defined flexion-extension axis at 88.1°. Influence of cross-talk on flexion-extension kinematics in the anatomical model was indicated by strong correlation between flexion-extension and adduction-abduction angles for tasks performed by the subjects. The proposed functional model eliminated cross-talk by sharing a common flexion axis between the humerus and forearm. In doing so, errors due to misalignment of axes are minimized providing greater accuracy in kinematic data.
Antoine Falisse, Sam Van Rossom, Johannes Gijsbers, Frans Steenbrink, Ben J.H. van Basten, Ilse Jonkers, Antonie J. van den Bogert and Friedl De Groote
model uses a moving knee flexion axis 24 to account for the translation of the tibiofemoral joint in the sagittal plane, whereas Human Body Model uses a fixed axis. Finally, there is a large offset between the pelvic reference frames (rotation about the mediolateral axis) in both models. It is worth
Clément Theurillat, Ilona Punt, Stéphane Armand, Alice Bonnefoy-Mazure and Lara Allet
amount and direction of mobility limitation and verify for outlier data (Figure 1A ). Figure 1 —(A) Quadrants are defined by dorsiflexion-plantar flexion axis (Z) and inversion-eversion axis (X). Quadrant 1 (Q1): dorsiflexion-eversion. Quadrant 2 (Q2): plantar flexion-eversion. Quadrant 3 (Q3): plantar