Dataset Information

The effect of modelling parameters in the development and validation of knee joint models on ligament mechanics: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The ligaments in the knee are prone to injury especially during dynamic activities. The resulting instability can have a profound impact on a patient's daily activities and functional capacity. Musculoskeletal knee modelling provides a non-invasive tool for investigating ligament force-strain behaviour in various dynamic scenarios, as well as potentially complementing existing pre-planning tools to optimise surgical reconstructions. However, despite the development and validation of many musculoskeletal knee models, the effect of modelling parameters on ligament mechanics has not yet been systematically reviewed.

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to investigate the results of the most recent studies using musculoskeletal modelling techniques to create models of the native knee joint, focusing on ligament mechanics and modelling parameters in various simulated movements.

Data sources

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Databases were searched for articles containing any numerical ligament strain or force data on the intact, ACL-deficient, PCL-deficient, or lateral extra-articular reconstructed (LER) knee joints. The studies had to derive these results from musculoskeletal modelling methods. The dates of the publications were between 1 January 1995 and 30 November 2021.

Method

A customised data extraction form was created to extract each selected study's critical musculoskeletal model development parameters. Specific parameters of the musculoskeletal knee model development used in each eligible study were independently extracted, including the (1) musculoskeletal model definition (i.e., software used for modelling, knee type, source of geometry, the inclusion of cartilage and menisci, and articulating joints and joint boundary conditions (i.e., number of degrees of freedom (DoF), subjects, type of activity, collected data and type of simulation)), (2) specifically ligaments modelling techniques (i.e., ligament bundles, attachment points, pathway, wrapping surfaces and ligament material properties such as stiffness and reference length), (3) sensitivity analysis, (4) validation approaches, (5) predicted ligament mechanics (i.e., force, length or strain) and (6) clinical applications if available. The eligible papers were then discussed quantitatively and qualitatively with respect to the above parameters.

Results and discussion

From the 1004 articles retrieved by the initial electronic search, only 25 met all inclusion criteria. The results obtained by aggregating data reported in the eligible studies indicate that considerable variability in the predicted ligament mechanics is caused by differences in geometry, boundary conditions and ligament modelling parameters.

Conclusion

This systematic review revealed that there is currently a lack of consensus on knee ligament mechanics. Despite this lack of consensus, some papers highlight the potential of developing translational tools using musculoskeletal modelling. Greater consistency in model design, incorporation of sensitivity assessment of the model outcomes and more rigorous validation methods should lead to better agreement in predictions for ligament mechanics between studies. The resulting confidence in the musculoskeletal model outputs may lead to the development of clinical tools that could be used for patient-specific treatments.

SUBMITTER: Farshidfar SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8794118 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury predisposes individuals to early-onset knee joint osteoarthritis (OA). Abnormal joint loading is apparent after ACL injury and reconstruction. The relationship between altered joint biomechanics and the development of knee OA is unknown.Altered knee joint kinetics and medial compartment contact forces initially after injury and reconstruction are associated with radiographic knee OA 5 years after reconstruction.Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Individuals with acute, unilateral ACL injury completed gait analysis before (baseline) and after (posttraining) preoperative rehabilitation and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after reconstruction. Surface electromyographic and knee biomechanical data served as inputs to an electromyographically driven musculoskeletal model to estimate knee joint contact forces. Patients completed radiographic testing 5 years after reconstruction. Differences in knee joint kinetics and contact forces were compared between patients with and those without radiographic knee OA.Patients with OA walked with greater frontal plane interlimb differences than those without OA (nonOA) at baseline (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.00 ± 0.08 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.15 ± 0.09 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .014; peak knee adduction moment impulse difference: -0.001 ± 0.032 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.048 ± 0.031 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .042). The involved limb knee adduction moment impulse of the group with osteoarthritis was also lower than that of the group without osteoarthritis at baseline (0.087 ± 0.023 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs 0.049 ± 0.018 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .023). Significant group differences were absent at posttraining but reemerged 6 months after reconstruction (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.02 ± 0.04 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.06 ± 0.11 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .043). In addition, the OA group walked with lower peak medial compartment contact forces of the involved limb than did the group without OA at 6 months (2.89 ± 0.52 body weight [nonOA] vs 2.10 ± 0.69 body weight [OA], P = .036).Patients who had radiographic knee OA 5 years after ACL reconstruction walked with lower knee adduction moments and medial compartment joint contact forces than did those patients without OA early after injury and reconstruction.

Project description:BackgroundKnee proprioception is believed to be deficient after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Tests of joint position sense (JPS) are commonly used to assess knee proprioception, but their psychometric properties (PMPs) are largely unknown.PurposeTo evaluate the PMPs (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of existing knee JPS tests targeting individuals with ACL injury.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsPubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ProQuest databases were searched to identify studies that assessed PMPs of knee JPS tests in individuals with ACL injury. The risk of bias for each included study was assessed and rated at the outcome level for each knee JPS test. Overall quality and levels of evidence for each PMP were rated according to established criteria. Meta-analyses with mean differences were conducted using random effects models when adequate data were available.ResultsIncluded were 80 studies covering 119 versions of knee JPS tests. Meta-analyses indicated sufficient quality for known-groups and discriminative validity (ACL-injured knees vs knees of asymptomatic controls and contralateral noninjured knees, respectively), owing to significantly greater absolute errors for ACL-injured knees based on a strong level of evidence. A meta-analysis showed insufficient quality for responsiveness, which was attributed to a lack of significant change over time after diverse interventions with a moderate level of evidence. Statistical heterogeneity (I 2 > 40%) was evident in the majority of meta-analyses. All remaining PMPs (reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, convergent validity, and other PMPs related to responsiveness) were assessed qualitatively, and they failed to achieve a sufficient quality rating. This was a result of either the study outcomes not agreeing with the statistical cutoff values/hypotheses or the level of evidence being rated as conflicting/unknown or based on only a single study.ConclusionKnee JPS tests appear to have sufficient validity in differentiating ACL-injured knees from asymptomatic knees. Further evidence of high methodologic quality is required to ascertain the reliability, responsiveness, and other types of validity assessed here. We recommend investigations that compare the modifiable methodologic components of knee JPS tests on their PMPs to develop standardized evidence-based tests.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing annually. Animal models have been used to clarify their clinical characteristics and the infection mechanism of pathogenic bacteria, However, since the prosthesis design of animal models is not uniform, it is difficult to simulate the environment of clinical PJI. OBJECTIVES:To retrospect the progress on the prosthesis design of animal models of PJI after TKA and to summarize the criteria for evaluating a clinically representative model of PJI. METHODS:This systematic review was reported on the basis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA). Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were researched for animal models of PJI after TKA from database establishment to April 2019 according to Chinese and English retrieval words, including "periprosthetic joint infections and total knee arthroplasty," "periprosthetic joint infections and model," "periprosthetic joint infections and biofilm," and "total knee arthroplasty and model." RESULTS:A total of 12 quantitative studies were enrolled in our study finally: 8 representative studies described prosthesis designs used in PJI animal models, 4 studies described prosthesis designs in non-infected animal models which were suitable for infection models. The major problems need to be dealed with were prosthesis, installation location, material, the function of separating the articular and medullary cavity, fixation manner, and the procedure of preserving the posterior cruciate ligament. CONCLUSION:A highly representative design of the animal prosthesis of PJI should meet the following criteria: the surface of the prosthesis is smooth with the formation of biofilm, composed of titanium-6Al-4V or cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy; prosthesis can bear weight and is highly stable; and it can connect the joint cavity and medullary cavity simultaneously. To reach a more reliable conclusion, further experiments and improvements are required.

Project description:BackgroundThreshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) tests of the knee joint are commonly implemented among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to assess proprioceptive acuity. Their psychometric properties (PMPs), i.e. reliability, validity and responsiveness, are however unclear. This systematic review aimed to establish the PMPs of existing knee joint TTDPM tests among individuals with ACL injury.MethodsThe databases PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL and ProQuest were searched to identify studies that assessed the properties of knee joint TTDPM tests in individuals with ACL injury. The risk of bias for each included study was assessed at the outcome level for each test. Overall quality and levels of evidence for each property were rated according to established criteria. Meta-analyses with mean differences were conducted using random-effects models when adequate data were available.ResultsFifty-one studies covering 108 TTDPM tests and 1632 individuals with unilateral ACL injury were included. A moderate-to-strong level of evidence indicated insufficient quality for all of the following: convergent validity, known-groups validity, discriminative validity, responsiveness between subgroups, and responsiveness to intervention. Subgroup meta-analyses for known-groups validity did however find that a starting angle of 15° resulted in significantly worse TTDPM for knees with ACL injury compared to those of asymptomatic persons (mean difference 0.28°; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.03), albeit based on only three studies. Due to the lack of evidence, it was not possible to estimate the quality of reliability, measurement error, and criterion validity, nor responsiveness from a criterion and construct approach.ConclusionsAmong persons with ACL injury, existing tests of knee joint TTDPM lack either sufficient quality or evidence for their reliability, validity and responsiveness. Significantly worse thresholds for ACL-injured knees compared to those of asymptomatic controls from a 15° starting angle and trends towards significance for some validity measures nevertheless encourage the development of standardised tests. Further research investigating the influence of modifiable test components (e.g. starting angle and motion direction) on the PMPs of knee joint TTDPM tests following ACL injury is warranted.