4.5 Article

Ground reaction forces and external hip joint moments predict in vivo hip contact forces during gait

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111037

关键词

In vivo hip contact forces; Ground reaction forces; Hip joint moments; Total hip arthroplasty; Functional data analysis

资金

  1. European Union [779293]
  2. German Research Society [DA 1786/5-1]
  3. Ortho Load Club

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For younger patients undergoing THA treatment, avoiding hip joint overloading is crucial. This study found that combining ground reaction force data with other scalar variables can predict in vivo hip contact force impulses.
Younger patients increasingly receive total hip arthroplasty (THA) as therapy for end-stage osteoarthritis. To maintain the long-term success of THA in such patients, avoiding extremely high hip loads, i.e., in vivo hip contact force (HCF), is considered essential. However, in vivo HCFs are difficult to determine and their direct measurement is limited to instrumented joint implants. It remains unclear whether external measurements of ground reaction forces (GRFs), a non-invasive, markerless and clinic-friendly measure can estimate in vivo HCFs. Using data from eight patients with instrumented hip implants, this study determined whether GRF time series data, alone or combined with other scalar variables such as hip joint moments (HJMs) and lean muscle volume (LMV), could predict the resultant HCF (rHCF) impulse using a functional linear modeling approach. Overall, single GRF time series data did not predict in vivo rHCF impulses. However, when GRF time series data were combined with LMV of the gluteus medius or sagittal HJM using a functional linear modeling approach, the in vivo rHCF impulse could be predicted from external measures only. Accordingly, this approach can predict in vivo rHCF impulses, and thus provide patients with useful insight regarding their gait behavior to avoid hip joint overloading.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据