IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Constant Thickness Cartilage Models vs. Patient Specific Cartilage Models for an Optimized Computer-Assisted Planning of Periacetabular Osteotomy

Author

Listed:
  • Li Liu
  • Timo Michael Ecker
  • Steffen Schumann
  • Klaus-Arno Siebenrock
  • Guoyan Zheng

Abstract

Modern computerized planning tools for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) use either morphology-based or biomechanics-based methods. The latter relies on estimation of peak contact pressures and contact areas using either patient specific or constant thickness cartilage models. We performed a finite element analysis investigating the optimal reorientation of the acetabulum in PAO surgery based on simulated joint contact pressures and contact areas using patient specific cartilage model. Furthermore we investigated the influences of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results. Ten specimens with hip dysplasia were used in this study. Image data were available from CT arthrography studies. Bone models were reconstructed. Mesh models for the patient specific cartilage were defined and subsequently loaded under previously reported boundary and loading conditions. Peak contact pressures and contact areas were estimated in the original position. Afterwards we used a validated preoperative planning software to change the acetabular inclination by an increment of 5° and measured the lateral center edge angle (LCE) at each reorientation position. The position with the largest contact area and the lowest peak contact pressure was defined as the optimal position. In order to investigate the influence of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results, the same procedure was repeated with the same bone models but with a cartilage mesh of constant thickness. Comparison of the peak contact pressures and the contact areas between these two different cartilage models showed that good correlation between these two cartilage models for peak contact pressures (r = 0.634 ∈ [0.6, 0.8], p 0.8, p

Suggested Citation

  • Li Liu & Timo Michael Ecker & Steffen Schumann & Klaus-Arno Siebenrock & Guoyan Zheng, 2016. "Evaluation of Constant Thickness Cartilage Models vs. Patient Specific Cartilage Models for an Optimized Computer-Assisted Planning of Periacetabular Osteotomy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146452
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146452
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146452&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henghui Zhang & Yiping Wang & Songtao Ai & Xiaojun Chen & Liao Wang & Kerong Dai, 2017. "Three-dimensional acetabular orientation measurement in a reliable coordinate system among one hundred Chinese," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.