Validation of the greater trochanter method with radiographic measurements of frontal plane hip joint centers and knee mechanical axis angles and two other hip joint center methods
Validation of the greater trochanter method with radiographic measurements of frontal plane hip joint centers and knee mechanical axis angles and two other hip joint center methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.06.013
复制
发表时间：
2016-09-06
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Zhang, Songning
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bennett, Hunter J.;Shen, Guangping;Zhang, Songning
存在用于预测髋关节中心（HJC）的若干运动捕捉方法。这些方法包括回归模型、功能关节和大转子预测。虽然回归和功能方法已与成像技术进行了比较，但TROCH方法先前尚未得到验证。本研究的目的是比较使用大转子方法与回归（Bell）和功能方法估计的额面HJC和膝关节机械轴角与使用X线片获得的角。35名参与者接受了长期前后位X线片，并进行了静态和功能性运动捕捉试验。贝尔，功能和转子HJC的构建，以预测机械轴和比较HJC的位置。使用单向重复测量ANOVA来比较通过运动捕获方法估计的机械轴和HJC位置以及使用射线照片测量的机械轴和HJC位置（p < 0.05）。与X线片相比，所有方法都高估了机械轴（< 2度），但无差异。两种方法之间的HJC位置和HJC间宽度相似;然而，与X线片相比，HJC间宽度被低估（平均3.7%）。Bell HJC比功能和转子方法更优越上级和更靠前。两种方法的转子HJC更靠后。与X线片相比，Bell方法在腿长预测方面优于其他方法。尽管两种方法之间存在差异，但所有额面HJC位置差异均< 1.7 cm。本研究验证了转子HJC预测方法，内外侧和垂直（各自的校正因子较小）。因此，与X线片相比，所有HJC方法在预测机械轴和额面HJC位置方面似乎都是可行的。(C)2016爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有
Several motion capture methods exist for predicting hip joint centers (HJC). These methods include regression models, functional joints, and projections from greater trochanters. While regression and functional methods have been compared to imaging techniques, the TROCH method has not been previously validated. The purpose of this study was to compare frontal-plane HJCs and knee mechanical axis angles estimated using the greater trochanter method with a regression (Bell) and a functional method against those obtained using radiographs. Thirty-five participants underwent a long-standing anteroposterior radiograph, and performed static and functional motion capture trials. The Bell, functional, and trochanter HJCs were constructed to predict mechanical axes and compare HJC locations. One-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare mechanical axes and HJC locations estimated by motion capture methods and measured using radiographs (p < 0.05). All methods overestimated mechanical axes compared to radiographs ( < 2 degrees), but were not different. Mediolateral HJC locations and inter-HJC widths were similar between methods; however, inter-HJC widths were underestimated (average 3.7%) compared to radiographs. The Bell HJC was more superior and anterior to both functional and trochanter methods. The trochanter HJC was more posterior to both methods. The Bell method outperformed the other methods in leg length predictions compared to radiographs. Although differences existed between methods, all frontal-plane HJC location differences were < 1.7 cm. This study validated the trochanter HJC prediction method mediolaterally and vertically (with small respective correction factors). Therefore, all HJC methods seem to be viable in predicting mechanical axes and frontal-plane HJC locations compared with radiographs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.