27.12.2012 Views

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

same slice for 2D analysis for repeated measurements reported as very low [8], the out<br />

of plane motion is still unaccounted for in the literature. Load bearing during high<br />

resolution imaging of the knee is also poorly reported in the literature and the results of<br />

our study indicate that load bearing of the in-vivo knee introduces additional posterior<br />

motion of both menisci in comparison to that of the passive in-vivo knee. Load bearing<br />

is therefore an important consideration when investigating patient meniscal<br />

biomechanics in future work in order to better represent the loading conditions of<br />

patients which results in pain and stiffness during daily activities.<br />

The results of this study additionally indicate that the medial meniscus remains<br />

stationary between 25º and 50º knee flexion having initially translated 3.3mm<br />

posteriorly from the neutral position. The medial pivot observed in this flexion range is<br />

consistent with the study of [8] which mapped tibio-femoral contact points during<br />

flexion and found that the lateral condyle rolls posteriorly in a consistent manner<br />

throughout flexion while the medial condyle rests in the centre of the tibial plateau. It<br />

would appear that it is only with increased knee flexion that the medial meniscus<br />

displaces posteriorly to a greater extent. Differences in posterior meniscal motion to<br />

those described in the literature, both in the sagittal and transverse planes, may also be<br />

due to knee kinematics during MR imaging, and geometry of the articulating bones and<br />

menisci. It is unlikely that ‘flexion’ of the knee indeed represents pure flexion without<br />

some combination of transverse or frontal plane rotations. The 6 degrees of freedom<br />

(6DOF) of the knee must therefore be quantified in all future studies of soft tissue and<br />

contact behaviour in the knee in order to more accurately describe the biomechanics of<br />

the meniscus. Although, not presented here, the methodology of this study allows for<br />

the quantification of the 6DOF of the knee simultaneously to the quantification of<br />

meniscal motion using similar methods as those employed to describe 3D movement of<br />

the menisci relative to the tibia. Investigation of 3D bone and menisci geometry for<br />

correlation to meniscal motion observed is also possible from the MR derived 3D<br />

computational models used in this study. The need to report knee 6DOF when<br />

describing meniscal biomechanics is further reinforced by the analysis of meniscal<br />

motion with internal and external rotation of the foot where large differences in<br />

meniscal position were observed. Externally rotating the foot under axial load was<br />

accompanied by a large 6.3mm anterior motion of the medial meniscus and a much<br />

smaller 0.9mm anterior motion of the lateral meniscus. It is interesting to note that this<br />

represents a lateral pivot rather than the expected medial pivot described from previous<br />

in-vitro investigations [10]. Internally rotating the foot under the same conditions causes<br />

the medial meniscus to translate anteriorly 4.5 mm and the lateral translates 3.3mm<br />

posteriorly relative to the loaded knee flexed to 25 degrees and the foot straight. These<br />

motions of the menisci do not appear to be consistent with internal rotation of the tibia<br />

relative to the femur, by medial pivot or by lateral pivot mechanisms. It is possible that<br />

internal rotation of the foot was accommodated by the ankle and resisted in the knee<br />

despite the best efforts to overcome such effects during MR imaging. Quantification of<br />

knee 6DOF is clearly required in future work.<br />

It is important to appreciate the limitations with the current study. Differences in image<br />

contrast, brightness and magnification between MRI scans or between processing of<br />

different operators may lead to changes in the pixels identified as meniscus or the<br />

surrounding tissue and lead to variation in the 3D models created. The registration of<br />

3D computational tibia and meniscus models in the test condition to that of a reference<br />

position (for example registration of the loaded knee models to unloaded knee models)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!