Incorporating patient-specific hip orientation from weightbearing computed tomography affects discrete element analysis-computed regional joint contact mechanics in individuals treated with periacetabular osteotomy for hip dysplasia
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2024
Incorporating patient-specific hip orientation from weightbearing computed tomography affects discrete element analysis-computed regional joint contact mechanics in individuals treated with periacetabular osteotomy for hip dysplasia
Computational models of the hip often omit patient-specific functional orientation when placing imaging-derived bony geometry into anatomic landmark-based coordinate systems for application of joint loading schemes. The purpose of this study was to determine if this omission meaningfully alters computed contact mechanics. Discrete element analysis models were created from non-weightbearing (NWB) clinical CT scans of 10 hip dysplasia patients (11 hips) and oriented in the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) coordinate system (NWB-ISB). Three additional models were generated for each hip by adding patient-specific stance information obtained via weightbearing CT (WBCT) to each ISB-oriented model: (1) patient-specific sagittal tilt added (WBCT-sagittal), (2) coronal and axial rotation from optical motion capture added to (1; WBCT-combo), and (3) WBCT-derived axial, sagittal, and coronal rotation added to (1; WBCT-original). Identical gait cycle loading was applied to all models for a given hip, and computed contact stress and contact area were compared between model initialization techniques. Addition of sagittal tilt did not significantly change whole-joint peak (p = 0.922) or mean (p = 0.871) contact stress or contact area (p = 0.638). Inclusion of motion-captured coronal and axial rotation (WBCT-combo) decreased peak contact stress (p = 0.014) and slightly increased average contact area (p = 0.071) from WBCT-sagittal models. Including all WBCT-derived rotations (WBCT-original) further reduced computed peak contact stress (p = 0.001) and significantly increased contact area (p = 0.001). Variably significant differences (p = 0.001–1.0) in patient-specific acetabular subregion mechanics indicate the importance of functional orientation incorporation for modeling applications in which local contact mechanics are of interest.
HadleyNABrownTDWeinsteinSL. The effects of contact pressure elevations and aseptic necrosis on the long-term outcome of congenital hip dislocation. J Orthop Res1990; 8(4): 504–513.
2.
NishiiTTanakaHSuganoN, et al. Disorders of acetabular labrum and articular cartilage in hip dysplasia: evaluation using isotropic high-resolutional CT arthrography with sequential radial reformation. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2007; 15(3): 251–257.
3.
KernAMAndersonDD. Expedited patient-specific assessment of contact stress exposure in the ankle joint following definitive articular fracture reduction. J Biomech2015; 48(12): 3427–3432.
4.
Van HouckeJAudenaertEAAtkinsPR, et al. A combined geometric morphometric and discrete element modeling approach for hip cartilage contact mechanics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8: 318.
5.
WangMWangLLiP, et al. A novel modelling and simulation method of hip joint surface contact stress. Bioengineered2017; 8(1): 105–112.
6.
AndersonAEEllisBJMaasSA, et al. Validation of finite element predictions of cartilage contact pressure in the human hip joint. J Biomech Eng2008; 130(5): 051008.
7.
TownsendKCThomas-AitkenHDRudertMJ, et al. Discrete element analysis is a valid method for computing joint contact stress in the hip before and after acetabular fracture. J Biomech2018; 67: 9–17.
8.
BergmannGGraichenFRohlmannA. Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech1993; 26(8): 969–990.
9.
McKibbinB. Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br1970; 52(1): 148–159.
10.
UemuraKAtkinsPRFiorentinoNM, et al. Hip rotation during standing and dynamic activities and the compensatory effect of femoral anteversion: an in-vivo analysis of asymptomatic young adults using three-dimensional computed tomography models and dual fluoroscopy. Gait Posture2018; 61: 276–281.
11.
UemuraKTakaoMOtakeY, et al. Can anatomic measurements of stem anteversion angle be considered as the functional anteversion angle?J Arthroplasty2018; 33(2): 595–600.
12.
WuGSieglerSAllardP, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion – part 1: ankle, hip, and spine. J Biomech2002; 35(4): 543–548.
13.
ScorcellettiMReevesNDRittwegerJ, et al. Femoral anteversion: significance and measurement. J Anat2020; 237(5): 811–826.
14.
KitamuraKFujiiMIkemuraS, et al. Does patient-specific functional pelvic tilt affect joint contact pressure in hip dysplasia? A finite-element analysis study. Clin Orthop Relat Res2021; 479(8): 1712–1724.
15.
TroelsenAJacobsenSRømerL, et al. Weightbearing anteroposterior pelvic radiographs are recommended in DDH assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008; 466(4): 813–819.
16.
KonishiNMienoT. Determination of acetabular coverage of the femoral head with use of a single anteroposterior radiograph. A new computerized technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am1993; 75(9): 1318–1333.
17.
MeyerAMThomas-AitkenHDBrouilletteMJ, et al. Isolated changes in femoral version do not alter intra-articular contact mechanics in cadaveric hips. J Biomech2020; 109: 109891.
18.
KitamuraKFujiiMUtsunomiyaT, et al. Effect of sagittal pelvic tilt on joint stress distribution in hip dysplasia: a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2020; 74: 34–41.
19.
ConrozierTLequesneMGTronAM, et al. The effects of position on the radiographic joint space in osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis Cartilage1997; 5(1): 17–22.
20.
FritzBFritzJFucenteseSF, et al. Three-dimensional analysis for quantification of knee joint space width with weight-bearing CT: comparison with non-weight-bearing CT and weight-bearing radiography. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2022; 30(5): 671–680.
21.
LenzALKrähenbühlNPetersonAC, et al. Statistical shape modeling of the talocrural joint using a hybrid multi-articulation joint approach. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 7314.
22.
de Cesar NettoCRichterM. Use of advanced weightbearing imaging in evaluation of hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Clin2020; 25(1): 31–45.
23.
LintzFde Cesar NettoCBargA, et al. Weight-bearing cone beam CT scans in the foot and ankle. EFORT Open Rev2018; 3(5): 278–286.
24.
HirschmannABuckFMFucenteseSF, et al. Upright CT of the knee: the effect of weight-bearing on joint alignment. Eur Radiol2015; 25(11): 3398–3404.
25.
MalhotraKWelckMCullenN, et al. The effects of weight bearing on the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a study comparing weight bearing-CT with conventional CT. Foot Ankle Surg2019; 25(4): 511–516.
26.
MarzoJKluczynskiMNotinoA, et al. Comparison of a novel weightbearing cone beam computed tomography scanner versus a conventional computed tomography scanner for measuring patellar instability. Orthop J Sports Med2016; 4(12): 2325967116673560.
27.
RichterMSeidlBZechS, et al. PedCAT for 3D-imaging in standing position allows for more accurate bone position (angle) measurement than radiographs or CT. Foot Ankle Surg2014; 20(3): 201–217.
28.
SegalNARabeKWaheedS, et al. The effect of arch drop on tibial rotation and tibiofemoral articular contact stress. Osteoarthr Cartil2017; 25: S139–S140.
29.
ThawaitGKDemehriSAlMuhitA, et al. Extremity cone-beam CT for evaluation of medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis: initial experience in imaging of the weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing knee. Eur J Radiol2015; 84(12): 2564–2570.
30.
ZhangDPanXZhangH, et al. The lateral center-edge angle as radiographic selection criteria for periacetabular osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip in patients aged above 13 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2020; 21(1): 493.
31.
AitkenHDWestermannRWBartschatNI, et al. Chronically elevated contact stress exposure correlates with intra-articular cartilage degeneration in patients with concurrent acetabular dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res2022; 40(11): 2632–2645.
32.
KitamuraKFujiiMIwamotoM, et al. Effect of coronal plane acetabular correction on joint contact pressure in Periacetabular osteotomy: a finite-element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2022; 23(1): 48.
33.
HarrisMDMacWilliamsBABo ForemanK, et al. Higher medially-directed joint reaction forces are a characteristic of dysplastic hips: a comparative study using subject-specific musculoskeletal models. J Biomech2017; 54: 80–87.
34.
SkalshoiOIversenCHNielsenDB, et al. Walking patterns and hip contact forces in patients with hip dysplasia. Gait Posture2015; 42(4): 529–533.
35.
ChaoEYVolokhKYYoshidaH, et al. Discrete element analysis in musculoskeletal biomechanics. Mol Cell Biomech2010; 7(3): 175–192.
36.
JinHLewisJL. Determination of Poisson’s ratio of articular cartilage by indentation using different-sized indenters. J Biomech Eng2004; 126(2): 138–145.
37.
ShepherdDESeedhomBB. The ‘instantaneous’ compressive modulus of human articular cartilage in joints of the lower limb. Rheumatology (Oxford)1999; 38(2): 124–132.
38.
TachibanaTFujiiMKitamuraK, et al. Does acetabular coverage vary between the supine and standing positions in patients with hip dysplasia?Clin Orthop Relat Res2019; 477(11): 2455–2466.
39.
AitkenHDWestermannRWBartschatNI, et al. Effect of modeling femoral version and head-neck offset correction on computed contact mechanics in dysplastic hips treated with periacetabular osteotomy. J Biomech2022; 141: 111207.
40.
GroodESSuntayWJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng1983; 105(2): 136–144.
41.
OsisSTHettingaBAMacdonaldS, et al. Effects of simulated marker placement deviations on running kinematics and evaluation of a morphometric-based placement feedback method. PLoS One2016; 11(1): e0147111.
42.
SzczerbikEKalinowskaM. The influence of knee marker placement error on evaluation of gait kinematic parameters. Acta Bioeng Biomech2011; 13(3): 43–46.
43.
FiorentinoNMAtkinsPRKutschkeMJ, et al. Soft tissue artifact causes significant errors in the calculation of joint angles and range of motion at the hip. Gait Posture2017; 55: 184–190.
44.
HenakCRAndersonAEWeissJA. Subject-specific analysis of joint contact mechanics: application to the study of osteoarthritis and surgical planning. J Biomech Eng2013; 135(2): 021003.
45.
RichterMLintzFde Cesar NettoC, et al. Results of more than 11,000 scans with weightbearing CT – impact on costs, radiation exposure, and procedure time. Foot Ankle Surg2020; 26(5): 518–522.
46.
Sophia FoxAJBediARodeoSA. The basic science of articular cartilage: structure, composition, and function. Sports Health2009; 1(6): 461–468.
47.
HenakCREllisBJHarrisMD, et al. Role of the acetabular labrum in load support across the hip joint. J Biomech2011; 44(12): 2201–2206.
48.
AbrahamCLMaasSAWeissJA, et al. A new discrete element analysis method for predicting hip joint contact stresses. J Biomech2013; 46(6): 1121–1127.
