Finite Element Analysis for Studying Knee Osteoarthritis: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lindsay Dong and Version 1 by Alexander Paz.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease that affects the synovial joints, especially the knee joint, diminishing the ability of patients to perform daily physical activities. Finite element analysis (FEA) has been considered a promising computational method to be developed for knee OA management. The FEA pipeline consists of three well-established phases: pre-processing (to prepare the model), processing (to solve the mathematical problem), and post-processing (to analyze the results). Each of these phases requires extensive expertise to conduct them properly, as there exist several different approaches with selection-specific limitations. In this review, we overview the FEA pipeline to simulate knee OA and present examples for validation and verification of models.

  • osteoarthritis
  • knee joint
  • articular cartilage
  • finite element analysis

1. Introduction

The knee is a synovial joint that transmits loads and motions between the distal femur and proximal tibia bones, mediated by the lever function of the patella. It allows joint rotations (internal–external, varus–valgus, and extension–flexion) and relative translations of the contacting bones to each other (in anterior–posterior, medial–lateral, and distal–proximal directions). Normal joint function is guaranteed by the smooth interaction of specialized joint tissues within the knee. A thin articular cartilage layer covers the bone ends, ensuring almost frictionless contact between the bones and reducing impact joint loads. Crescent-shaped menisci, located between the femur and tibia at both lateral and medial compartments, reduce the contact pressures in articular cartilage. Ligaments stabilize the knee joint and restrict excessive joint motions during different physical activities, while tendons transmit muscle forces to bony structures [1,2,3,4][1][2][3][4]. All knee joint tissues work in harmony to maintain the health of the joint; however, when functionality in any of the knee components is disturbed, for instance, due to overweightness or trauma, the joint is exposed to the development of osteoarthritis (OA) [5,6][5][6].

Finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) is a computational approach that solves physics-based problems using constitutive and governing equations. FEA has been, for three decades, a non-invasive strategy to study how different biomechanical risk factors may impact knee joint tissues. It has helped researchers understand cartilage degeneration mechanisms at the tissue level and knee joint biomechanics under various loading conditions in health and disease [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].

In general, an FEA is performed in three stages: a pre-processing stage to prepare the model, a processing stage to solve the mathematical problem, and a post-processing stage to analyze the results and draw conclusions. Especially for knee joint FEAs, the time required to generate accurate subject-specific models, with detailed three-dimensional (3D) geometries and feasible FE meshes, is the main drawback for clinical implementation, since it may take several working days per individual [30,31,32,33][16][17][18][19].

2. Development of Knee Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

FEA was proposed in the mid-20th century for solving complex problems by discretizing a physical domain into small pieces called elements [34][20]. FEA is currently used in a wide range of sciences, such as biomechanics, for dealing with nonlinearities of tissue mechanical behavior, complex geometries, and multi-physics interactions [35][21]. For knee tissue biomechanics, initial studies focused on structural characterization and mathematical description utilizing simple loading conditions. Then, due to improvements in equipment, increasing computing capacity, and theoretical enrichment, more realistic geometries and loading conditions were included in the numerical models. Thus, the route from the first 3D knee joint model until now has been a long 40-year journey [36,37,38][22][23][24].

3. Knee Finite EAlement Analysis (FEA) Workflow

FEA involves three main phases. In the pre-processing stage, the geometry, mesh, constitutive models, loading, and boundary conditions are defined. In the processing stage, the mathematical equations describing the model are solved numerically. In the post-processing stage, the results are usually extracted from the simulation software and analyzed with appropriate programs for further calculations. Additional tasks mandatory for achieving reliable FEA results include mesh convergence analyses, verifications, and validations against experimental data [30,39,40][16][25][26].

3.1. Pre-Processing

3.1.1 Geometry

Commonly, an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist segments medical images, identifying and contouring the tissues of interest (bone, cartilage, meniscus, ligaments, and tendons) to obtain their 3D representation. For that, information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scans can be used. MRI is usually preferred over CT since it has superior soft-tissue contrast and no ionizing radiation is used [19,41,42,43][27][28][29][30].

Manual segmenting of an MRI dataset of the knee, using an 0.5 mm slice thickness, takes several hours [26,44,45,46][12][31][32][33]. For the CT dataset, it takes even longer due to higher image resolution. Hence, the rapid generation of 3D geometries from medical images has received special attention not only for modeling purposes but for surgery planning and implant designing [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].

Once the 3D geometry is ready, commonly in a shell stereolithography CAD format (.stl), researchers assign a volume to it, translating the shell geometry to a solid format (e.g., .igs), and smooth and repair any discontinuity in the geometry. This activity is done by using custom algorithms or CAD software including SolidWorks (SolidWorks Corporation, Waltham, MA, USA), CATIA (Dassault Systèmes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France), and Rhinoceros (Robert McNeel & Associates, Seattle, WA, USA).

3.1.2. Mesh

As a second step, shell or volumetric geometries of the knee structure are discretized for FEA. This representation of objects as a set of connected elements is the basis of this method [34][20]. Hence, the accuracy of the numerical results highly depends on the mesh quality.

In FEA, a particular element type may be more appropriate for a problem according to the objective of the study [53,54][39][40]. The linear tetrahedral is the simplest volumetric element and is preferred for automated meshing methods [33,53,55,56][19][39][41][42]. However, it overestimates the stiffness at large deformations and numerous elements are needed to ensure solution convergence [35][21]. In contrast, hexahedral elements are recommended when the problem exhibits a high nonlinear behavior, such as in contact problems [33][19]. However, it is a challenging task to mesh intricate geometries with only hexahedral elements [57][43]. An example of a knee joint meshed with hexahedral elements is freely available from the OpenKnee project [58] [44] at https://simtk.org/projects/openknee (accessed on 13 October 2021). High-order elements (e.g., tetrahedral of 10 nodes, hexahedral of 20 nodes) are recommended to better track deformations and stresses in soft tissues such as cartilage, muscle, or ligament since they produce smoother strain and stress estimates with fewer elements compared to linear approximations (e.g., tetrahedral of 4 nodes). In addition, they provide a closer representation of complex curved surfaces [54,57][40][43].

Usually, meshing algorithms create an accurate mesh by controlling the size and type of elements [39][40]. [53,54]. These meshing tools are found in commercial and open-source software. Commercial meshers include HyperMesh (Altair Inc., Troy, MI, USA) and others contained in FEA software such as ABAQUS (SIMULIA, Providence, RI, USA) or ANSYS (Ansys, Canonsburg, PA, USA). Open-source meshers include Gmsh, SALOME, and MeshLab. On the other hand, it is also possible to use custom algorithms.

This stage of the FEA workflow can be expedited in different ways. For example, Baldwin et al. [32] [45] accelerated the meshing process by working directly on the set of medical images, avoiding the segmentation task. They proposed to control the shape of the mesh via key nodes (handles) distributed in the mesh. The user fits hexahedral meshes of femoral, tibial, and patellar cartilages directly to the morphology of the patient in ~1.5 h. This template-based approach allows for control of the element type and mesh quality, although it still depends on the time and expertise of users to identify the tissue contours on images.

3.1.3. Material Constitutive Models

The constitutive models are chosen according to the objective of the study [59,60,61,62][45][46][47][48], and the mechanical parameters should be selected to mimic real tissue behavior based on the experimental data.

For the case of articular cartilage, it can be described as a biphasic fibril-reinforced material. This tissue reacts differently under tensile and compressive forces. In addition, it exhibits a time-dependent behavior caused by two mechanisms: in compression, mainly due to fluid exudation, and in tension, mainly due to the viscoelasticity of the solid phase, particularly collagen fibrils.

The simplest constitutive model defines this tissue as an isotropic homogeneous elastic material, indicating it mimics only one time-point from the stress–relaxation curve. As such, it should be used with caution to model only instantaneous and equilibrium tissue responses [63,64][49][50]. For time-dependent behavior, cartilage has been modeled using solid viscoelastic [65,66][51][52] and biphasic formulations [67,68][53][54]. Biphasic models are based on poroelasticity theory, developed by Biot [69][55], and mixture theory, developed by Mow et al. [70,71,72][56][57][58]. Both theories consider a biphasic material composed of incompressible solid and fluid phases and lead to equivalent solutions [73][59]. There, the volumetric changes in tissue are explained by the net fluid flux through tissue boundaries. Subsequent cartilage models captured both relaxation mechanisms, with biphasic formulations including a viscoelastic solid phase [74,75,76,77][60][61][62][63]. Further descriptions allow for modeling of the anisotropy caused by the collagen fibril network as well as the depth-dependent heterogeneities in water and the proteoglycan (PG) and collagen contents [78,79,80][64][65][66]. Finally, since PGs induce cartilage swelling due to negative charges, the most complex descriptions include swelling [81,82][67][68] and triphasic [83,84][69][70] models.

The site-specific distributions of material constituents in cartilage may impact its mechanical response or serve as a measurement of tissue integrity. Researchers can use imaging techniques such as quantitative MRI (qMRI) to compute such distributions [85,86,87][71][72][73]. At the organ scale, Räsänen et al. [86,87][72][73] studied the effect of in vivo fixed charge density (FCD) distribution in knee cartilage under different loading conditions. To do so, they obtained the FCD distribution using 23Na-MRI and used a fibril-reinforced poroviscoelastic with swelling effect formulation for cartilage and menisci. First, in [86][72], they compared the MRI-based tibial cartilage deformation before and after the standing period with the patient bearing half of their weight for 13 min statically. They concluded that using a subject-specific FCD content differs from using a constant value or a generic depth-dependent distribution from the literature. Second, in [87][73], they simulated the stance phase of the gait modeling combinations of different FCD contents and collagen network stiffnesses. Results showed that combining the lowest FCD content with the softest collagen network, as found in knee OA patients, resulted in a considerable reduction in cartilage mechanical capabilities. In addition to MRI-based solutions, ultrasound techniques can also estimate tissue characteristics in vivo, such as thickness and stiffness [88,89,90,91][74][75][76][77], but quantifying other mechanical material parameters remains constrainroperties such as permeability is still restricted to in vitro setups.

3.1.4. Subject-Specific Motion and Loading

Once the domain is discretized and the constitutive material models are chosen, the next step is to define the boundary conditions and loading.

Usually, this subject-specific information is obtained via motion capture. This task can be conducted using infrared cameras and reflective markers, using inertial measurement units (IMUs), or using video recordings and artificial intelligence (AI). In addition to motion, the ground reaction forces (GRFs) are recorded with pressure sensors, and the muscular activation is captured via electromyography (EMG). Then, joint motions, moments, contact forces, and muscle forces in the knee can be estimated using inverse kinematics via musculoskeletal modeling [24,112,113,114,115][10][78][79][80][81]. This process is facilitated with software such as AnyBody (AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark), Vicon (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK), and OpenSim [116][82]. Other options to estimate these variables in the knee involve AI, where physics-based models are replaced by trained machine learning models [42,117,118,119,120][29][83][84][85][86]. In these models, knee loading patterns (e.g., joint forces and moments) can be predicted from measured variables (e.g., marker trajectories, GRFs, and EMGs) by organizing the input information into matrix form and optimizing a set of parameters to correlate it with the desired response. Some machine learning methods are better than others depending on the type of data and the aobjectimsve of the study [117,121][83][87].

3.1.5. Model Configuration

This refers to the decisions regarding what knee structures to include in the models, what level of detail is needed, and what assumptions will be included in the final model. Rooks et al. [126][88] showed how this decision-making process results in different strategies to answer the same research question concerning the knee joint using FEA. In that study, five teams developed FE models of two knees to simulate a passive knee flexion between 0 deg and 90 deg, considering the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints. In general, the teams had similar workflows, although they integrated some knee structures differently. In brief, the teams considered bones as rigid bodies, just one included deformable cartilage, one of them excluded the menisci, and one of them excluded the tendons. The time required to solve the models varied between 30 min and 9 h.

Sometimes, a multi-scale model is needed to answer the research question [125,127,128,129,130,131][89][90][91][92][93][94]. In these cases, researchers look for the concurrent effects of mechanical stimuli through different physics scales [131][94]. For instance, it is possible to even simulate the chondrocyte mechanical environment within cartilage under unconfined compression [95] [132] or gait cycle loading in healthy and meniscectomized knees [129][92].

3.2. Processing

At this stage of an FEA, the mathematical problem behind the model is solved using numerical algorithms. This considers the governing equations describing the physics, the discretized domain, the material constitutive models, and the boundary conditions. The inclusion of time-dependent and inertial terms defines what type of analysis (static, transient, or dynamic) should be performed. Depending on the complexity of the model (number of mathematical equations) and the available computational resources, computationally solving the numerical problem may take from minutes to weeks [133].[96]

There is a variety of specialized software to process complex FE models. For instance, ABAQUS (SIMULIA, Providence, RI, USA) is a popular software utilized for FEA in biomechanics. This commercial software enables incorporating user-defined (UMAT) subroutines to describe constitutive models, which is a common necessity for developing new material formulations. In addition, ANSYS (ANSYS, Canonsburg, PE, USA) and COMSOL (COMSOL, Stockholm, Sweden) are commercial software widely used for biomechanics modeling. On the other hand, FEBio (FEBio Software Suite, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) is an open-source and freely available software focused on solving problems in biomechanics and is particularly focused on solving biphasic problems [134,135][97][98].

3.3. Post-Processing

This is a central stage when the results of the FEAs are interpreted. Adequate post-processing gives insights into the assumptions made at the beginning of the research and supports further hypotheses.

There are different ways to analyze the results. For example, appropriate fringe plots offer a visual translation of the intensities of variables such as deformations and stresses, and vector fields and streamlines are appropriate to describe principal tensor components and fluid motions [136][99]. In addition, figures and statistics are mandatory for qualitative and quantitative evaluations of tendencies and correlations, respectively. For these post-processing tasks, many researchers trust MATLAB (The Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA), since it offers a wide variety of functions for extensive analyses by manipulating matrices, and statistical software such as SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY, USA) and Stata (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

3.4. Onset and Progression of Osteoarthritis (OA)

FE models have been used to test hypotheses regarding the OA mechanisms at different scales. On the one hand, at the tissue level, researchers have studied the effects of the depletion of cartilage constituents on the mechanical response of the tissue, such as reaction forces and displacements in unconfined compression relaxation tests of cartilage samples [143,144,145][100][101][102]. Others investigated the cross-talk between tissues that could address tissue remodeling when the mechanical environment changes [28][14]. Mechanobiological models have also intended to explain the interplay of tissue constituents with the degradation of cartilage, including cell signaling to modify the mechanical response [21,146,147,148][7][103][104][105].

On the other hand, at the joint level, researchers have simulated a variety of diseased conditions. These studies include investigations of the effect of size and location of cartilage superficial defects on strain and stress concentrations [139][106], the effect of knee structures’ relative orientation on cartilage thinning [149],[107] and the effect of collagen disorganization on the load-bearing functions of cartilage [150,151][108][109].

3.5. Verification and Validation

When developing new models or approaches, they should be verified and validated before the results they produce can be trusted. The verification can be completed by comparing the computational model results with those of similar previous works. The reason behind this is to confirm that the new models offer logical results. Subsequently, the validation is crucial for demonstrating the capabilities of the model to reproduce and predict experimental results. The source of experimental data for validations includes in vitro and in vivo experiments. In vitro experiments include testing of tissue explants and complete joints from cadavers. Commonly, stress–relaxation test data with several strain steps are used to calibrate and validate material parameters of cartilage, especially for complex material models [63,104,153,154][49][110][111][112]. In vivo experiments can include data from instrumented knee prostheses (with a force sensor) after total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, and data from non-invasive techniques such as MRI [155][113], and external transducers such as pressure sensors, electromyography, and markers for gait analysis [24,124,156][10][114][115].

Parameters for the validation of musculoskeletal and FE joint models include in vivo forces through tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joints [3], cartilage deformations [155[113][116][117],157,158], and displacements of the patella and menisci, which are variables useful for the assessment of musculoskeletal disorders [13,111,159,160,161][118][119][120][121][122]. In this regard, MRI and fluoroscopy have been used to study the relative motion of internal structures of the knee in vivo [162,163,164,165][123][124][125][126]. For instance, Li et al. [166][127] combined dual fluoroscopy with SSM to evaluate the kinematics of the knee joint. The dual fluoroscopy combined with the SSM technique was used to automatically calculate subject-specific geometries and the relative motion of bony structures. They studied the kinematics of the stance phase of three subjects walking at 3.2 kilometers per hour. Their method produced root mean square (RMS) errors as high as 1.77 mm in geometries, 3.3 degrees in rotations, and 2.4 mm in displacements, compared to a CT-based method.

4. Perspective

Based on the recent investigations we reviewed, we believe the fields of active research related to studying knee OA via FEA would be:

  • Automate pre-processing tasks using a minimum amount of information (geometry generation and loading specification);
  • Incorporate site-specific tissue composition and mechanical properties;
  • Develop accurate algorithms for OA prognosis (theory and validation);
  • Develop efficient multiscale modeling methods (from joint to tissue level);
  • Combine advances in FEA, musculoskeletal modeling, and AI.

Thus, coming investigations will efficiently combine machine learning approaches, faster and more affordable imaging techniques for rapidly generating subject-specific geometries and meshes, and personalized mechanical inputs such as tissue properties and loading scenarios. Similar phenomena will occur within processing and post-processing with accelerated task performance via coupling analysis methods (e.g., FEA and AI). In the long term, these advances would enable novel treatment management strategies to delay or prevent the progression of knee OA. Personalized predictions will offer a new route to optimize the most cost-effective therapy option. Furthermore, FEA-supported visual information from personalized prognoses and the effects of different interventions could motivate and commit patients to suggested treatment.

References

  1. Harris, M.D.; Cyr, A.J.; Ali, A.A.; Fitzpatrick, C.K.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Maletsky, L.P.; Shelburne, K.B. A Combined Experimental and Computational Approach to Subject-Specific Analysis of Knee Joint Laxity. J. Biomech. Eng. 2016, 138, 1–8.
  2. Dhaher, Y.Y.; Kwon, T.; Barry, M. The effect of connective tissue material uncertainties on knee joint mechanics under isolated loading conditions. J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 3118–3125.
  3. Fregly, B.J.; Besier, T.F.; Lloyd, D.G.; Delp, S.L.; Banks, S.A.; Pandy, M.G.; D’Lima, D.D. Grand Challenge Competition to Predict In Vivo Knee Loads. J. Ortopaedic Res. 2014, 30, 503–513.
  4. Ali, A.A.; Harris, M.D.; Shalhoub, S.; Maletsky, L.P.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Shelburne, K.B. Combined measurement and modeling of specimen-specific knee mechanics for healthy and ACL-deficient conditions. J. Biomech. 2017, 57, 117–124.
  5. Litwic, A.; Edwards, M.H.; Dennison, E.M.; Cooper, C. Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis. Br. Med. Bull. 2013, 105, 185–199.
  6. Gersing, A.S.; Schwaiger, B.J.; Nevitt, M.C.; Joseph, G.B.; Chanchek, N.; Guimaraes, J.B.; Wamba, J.M.; Facchetti, L.; McCulloch, C.E.; Link, T.M. Is weight loss associated with less progression of changes in knee articular cartilage among obese and overweight patients as assessed with MR imaging over 48 months? Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Radiology 2017, 284, 508–520.
  7. Orozco, G.A.; Tanska, P.; Florea, C.; Grodzinsky, A.J.; Korhonen, R.K. A novel mechanobiological model can predict how physiologically relevant dynamic loading causes proteoglycan loss in mechanically injured articular cartilage. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–16.
  8. Klets, O.; Mononen, M.E.; Liukkonen, M.K.; Nevalainen, M.T.; Nieminen, M.T.; Saarakkala, S.; Korhonen, R.K. Estimation of the Effect of Body Weight on the Development of Osteoarthritis Based on Cumulative Stresses in Cartilage: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 46, 334–344.
  9. Park, S.; Lee, S.; Yoon, J.; Chae, S.W. Finite element analysis of knee and ankle joint during gait based on motion analysis. Med. Eng. Phys. 2019, 63, 33–41.
  10. Shu, L.; Yamamoto, K.; Yao, J.; Saraswat, P.; Liu, Y.; Mitsuishi, M.; Sugita, N. A subject-specific finite element musculoskeletal framework for mechanics analysis of a total knee replacement. J. Biomech. 2018, 77, 146–154.
  11. Mononen, M.E.; Tanska, P.; Isaksson, H.; Korhonen, R.K. New algorithm for simulation of proteoglycan loss and collagen degeneration in the knee joint: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. J. Orthop. Res. 2018, 36, 1673–1683.
  12. Mononen, M.E.; Liukkonen, M.K.; Korhonen, R.K. Utilizing Atlas-Based Modeling to Predict Knee Joint Cartilage Degeneration: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2019, 47, 813–825.
  13. Hosseini, S.M.; Wilson, W.; Ito, K.; Van Donkelaar, C.C. A numerical model to study mechanically induced initiation and progression of damage in articular cartilage. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2014, 22, 95–103.
  14. Stender, M.E.; Carpenter, R.D.; Regueiro, R.A.; Ferguson, V.L. An evolutionary model of osteoarthritis including articular cartilage damage, and bone remodeling in a computational study. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3502–3508.
  15. Párraga Quiroga, J.M.; Wilson, W.; Ito, K.; van Donkelaar, C.C. The effect of loading rate on the development of early damage in articular cartilage. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2017, 16, 263–273.
  16. Cooper, R.J.; Wilcox, R.K.; Jones, A.C. Finite element models of the tibiofemoral joint: A review of validation approaches and modelling challenges. Med. Eng. Phys. 2019, 74, 1–12.
  17. Chandrupatla, T.R.; Belegundu, A.D. Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering, 3rd ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 0130615919.
  18. Bolcos, P.O.; Mononen, M.E.; Mohammadi, A.; Ebrahimi, M.; Tanaka, M.S.; Samaan, M.A.; Souza, R.B.; Li, X.; Suomalainen, J.S.; Jurvelin, J.S.; et al. Comparison between kinetic and kinetic-kinematic driven knee joint finite element models. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–11.
  19. Rodriguez-Vila, B.; Sánchez-González, P.; Oropesa, I.; Gomez, E.J.; Pierce, D.M. Automated hexahedral meshing of knee cartilage structures—Application to data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2017, 20, 1543–1553.
  20. Roberts, G.L.; Pallister, I. Finite element analysis in trauma & orthopaedics—An introduction to clinically relevant simulation & its limitations. Orthop. Trauma 2012, 26, 410–416.
  21. Henak, C.R.; Anderson, A.E.; Weiss, J.A. Subject-specific analysis of joint contact mechanics: Application to the study of osteoarthritis and surgical planning. J. Biomech. Eng. 2013, 135, 1–26.
  22. Wismans, J.; Veldpaus, F.; Jannsen, J. A three-dimensional mathematical model of the knee-joint. J. Biomech. 1980, 13, 677–685.
  23. Andriacchi, T.P.; Mikosz, R.P.; Hampton, S.J.; Galante, J.O. Model studies of the stiffness characteristics of the human knee joint. J. Biomech. 1983, 16, 23–29.
  24. Bendjaballah, M.Z.; Shirazi-Adl, A.; Zukor, D.J. Biomechanics of the human knee joint in compression: Reconstruction, mesh generation and finite element analysis. Knee 1995, 2, 69–79.
  25. Mukherjee, S.; Nazemi, M.; Jonkers, I.; Geris, L. Use of Computational Modeling to Study Joint Degeneration: A Review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 1–20.
  26. Yang, N.H.; Canavan, P.K.; Nayeb-Hashemi, H.; Najafi, B.; Vaziri, A. Protocol for constructing subject-specific biomechanical models of knee joint. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2010, 13, 589–603.
  27. Chan, L.C.; Li, H.H.T.; Chan, P.K.; Wen, C. A machine learning-based approach to decipher multi-etiology of knee osteoarthritis onset and deterioration. Osteoarthr. Cartil. Open 2021, 3, 100135.
  28. Hayashi, D.; Roemer, F.W.; Guermazi, A. Imaging for osteoarthritis. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 59, 161–169.
  29. Boswell, M.A.; Uhlrich, S.D.; Kidziński, T.K.; Kolesar, J.A.; Gold, G.E.; Beaupre, G.S.; Delp, S.L. A neural network to predict the knee adduction moment in patients with osteoarthritis using anatomical landmarks obtainable from 2D video analysis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2021, 29, 346–356.
  30. Neubert, A.; Wilson, K.J.; Engstrom, C.; Surowiec, R.K.; Paproki, A.; Johnson, N.; Crozier, S.; Fripp, J.; Ho, C.P. Comparison of 3D bone models of the knee joint derived from CT and 3T MR imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 2017, 93, 178–184.
  31. Ambellan, F.; Tack, A.; Ehlke, M.; Zachow, S. Automated Segmentation of Knee Bone and Cartilage combining Statistical Shape Knowledge and Convolutional Neural Networks: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Med. Image Anal. 2018, 52, 109–118.
  32. Baldwin, M.A.; Langenderfer, J.E.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Laz, P.J. Development of subject-specific and statistical shape models of the knee using an efficient segmentation and mesh-morphing approach. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2010, 97, 232–240.
  33. Tack, A.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Zachow, S. Knee menisci segmentation using convolutional neural networks: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2018, 26, 680–688.
  34. Anderson, D.D.; Segal, N.A.; Kern, A.M.; Nevitt, M.C.; Torner, J.C.; Lynch, J.A. Reliability of Semiautomated Computational Methods for Estimating Tibiofemoral Contact Stress in the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2012, 2012, 8.
  35. Das Neves Borges, P.; Forte, A.E.; Vincent, T.L.; Dini, D.; Marenzana, M. Rapid, automated imaging of mouse articular cartilage by microCT for early detection of osteoarthritis and finite element modelling of joint mechanics. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2014, 22, 1419–1428.
  36. Rao, C.; Fitzpatrick, C.K.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Maletsky, L.P.; Kim, R.H.; Laz, P.J. A statistical finite element model of the knee accounting for shape and alignment variability. Med. Eng. Phys. 2013, 35, 1450–1456.
  37. Mohammadi, A.; Myller, K.A.H.; Tanska, P.; Hirvasniemi, J.; Saarakkala, S.; Töyräs, J.; Korhonen, R.K.; Mononen, M.E. Rapid CT-based Estimation of Articular Cartilage Biomechanics in the Knee Joint Without Cartilage Segmentation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 48, 2965–2975.
  38. Ebrahimkhani, S.; Jaward, M.H.; Cicuttini, F.M.; Dharmaratne, A.; Wang, Y.; de Herrera, A.G.S. A review on segmentation of knee articular cartilage: From conventional methods towards deep learning. Artif. Intell. Med. 2020, 106, 101851.
  39. Viceconti, M.; Bellingeri, L.; Cristofolini, L.; Toni, A. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs. Med. Eng. Phys. 1998, 20, 1–10.
  40. Ramos, A.; Simões, J.A. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med. Eng. Phys. 2006, 28, 916–924.
  41. McErlain, D.D.; Milner, J.S.; Ivanov, T.G.; Jencikova-Celerin, L.; Pollmann, S.I.; Holdsworth, D.W. Subchondral cysts create increased intra-osseous stress in early knee OA: A finite element analysis using simulated lesions. Bone 2011, 48, 639–646.
  42. Tadepalli, S.C.; Erdemir, A.; Cavanagh, P.R. Comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral elements in finite element analysis of the foot and footwear. J. Biomech. 2011, 44, 2337–2343.
  43. Maas, S.A.; Ellis, B.J.; Rawlins, D.S.; Weiss, J.A. Finite element simulation of articular contact mechanics with quadratic tetrahedral elements. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 659–667.
  44. Erdemir, A. Open Knee: Open Source Modeling & Simulation to Enable Scientific Discovery and Clinical Care in Knee Biomechanics. J. Knee Surg. 2016, 29, 107–116.
  45. Wilson, W.; Van Donkelaar, C.C.; Van Rietbergen, B.; Ito, K.; Huiskes, R. Stresses in the local collagen network of articular cartilage: A poroviscoelastic fibril-reinforced finite element study. J. Biomech. 2004, 37, 357–366.
  46. Klets, O.; Mononen, M.E.; Tanska, P.; Nieminen, M.T.; Korhonen, R.K.; Saarakkala, S. Comparison of different material models of articular cartilage in 3D computational modeling of the knee: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3891–3900.
  47. García, J.J.; Cortés, D.H. A biphasic viscohyperelastic fibril-reinforced model for articular cartilage: Formulation and comparison with experimental data. J. Biomech. 2007, 40, 1737–1744.
  48. Ateshian, G.A.; Rajan, V.; Chahine, N.O.; Canal, C.E.; Hung, C.T. Modeling the Matrix of Articular Cartilage Using a Continuous Fiber Angular Distribution Predicts Many Observed Phenomena. J. Biomech. Eng. 2009, 131, 612–615.
  49. Peters, A.E.; Akhtar, R.; Comerford, E.J.; Bates, K.T. Tissue material properties and computational modelling of the human tibiofemoral joint: A critical review. PeerJ 2018, 6, 1–48.
  50. Shirazi, R.; Shirazi-Adl, A.; Hurtig, M. Role of cartilage collagen fibrils networks in knee joint biomechanics under compression. J. Biomech. 2008, 41, 3340–3348.
  51. Keenan, K.E.; Pal, S.; Lindsey, D.P.; Besier, T.F.; Beaupre, G.S. A viscoelastic constitutive model can accurately represent entire creep indentation tests of human patella cartilage. J. Appl. Biomech. 2013, 29, 292–302.
  52. Thomas, G.C.; Asanbaeva, A.; Vena, P.; Sah, R.L.; Klisch, S.M. A nonlinear constituent based viscoelastic model for articular cartilage and analysis of tissue remodeling due to altered glycosaminoglycan-collagen interactions. J. Biomech. Eng. 2009, 131, 1–11.
  53. Soltz, M.A.; Ateshian, G.A. A conewise linear elasticity mixture model for the analysis of tension-compression nonlinearity in articular cartilage. J. Biomech. Eng. 2000, 122, 576–586.
  54. Soltz, M.A.; Ateshian, G.A. Experimental verification and theoretical prediction of cartilage interstitial fluid pressurization at an impermeable contact interface in confined compression. J. Biomech. 1998, 31, 927–934.
  55. Biot, M.A. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J. Appl. Phys. 1941, 12, 155–164.
  56. Mow, V.C.; Kuei, S.C.; Lai, W.M.; Armstrong, C.G. Biphasic creep and stress relaxation of articular cartilage in compression: Theory and experiments. J. Biomech. Eng. 1980, 102, 73–84.
  57. Holmes, M.H.; Mow, V.C. The nonlinear characteristics of soft gels and hydrated connective tissues in ultrafiltration. J. Biomech. 1990, 23, 1145–1156.
  58. Lai, W.M.; Mow, V.C. Drag-induced compression of articular cartilage during a permeation experiment. Biorheology 1980, 17, 111–123.
  59. Simon, B.R. Multiphase poroelastic finite element models for soft tissue structures. Appl. Mech. Rev. 1992, 45, 191–218.
  60. DiSilvestro, M.R.; Suh, J.K.F. A cross-validation of the biphasic poroviscoelastic model of articular cartilage in unconfined compression, indentation, and confined compression. J. Biomech. 2001, 34, 519–525.
  61. García, J.J.; Cortés, D.H. A nonlinear biphasic viscohyperelastic model for articular cartilage. J. Biomech. 2006, 39, 2991–2998.
  62. Suh, J.K.; Bai, S. Finite element formulation of biphasic poroviscoelastic model for articular cartilage. J. Biomech. Eng. 1998, 120, 195–201.
  63. Mak, A.F. The apparent viscoelastic behavior of articular cartilage–the contributions from the intrinsic matrix viscoelasticity and interstitial fluid flows. J. Biomech. Eng. 1986, 108, 123–130.
  64. Pierce, D.M.; Unterberger, M.J.; Trobin, W.; Ricken, T.; Holzapfel, G.A. A microstructurally based continuum model of cartilage viscoelasticity and permeability incorporating measured statistical fiber orientations. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2016, 15, 229–244.
  65. Pierce, D.M.; Ricken, T.; Holzapfel, G.A. A hyperelastic biphasic fibre-reinforced model of articular cartilage considering distributed collagen fibre orientations: Continuum basis, computational aspects and applications. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2013, 16, 1344–1361.
  66. Julkunen, P.; Kiviranta, P.; Wilson, W.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Korhonen, R.K. Characterization of articular cartilage by combining microscopic analysis with a fibril-reinforced finite-element model. J. Biomech. 2007, 40, 1862–1870.
  67. Wilson, W.; Van Donkelaar, C.C.; Huyghe, J.M. A comparison between mechano-electrochemical and biphasic swelling theories for soft hydrated tissues. J. Biomech. Eng. 2005, 127, 158–165.
  68. Wilson, W.; Van Donkelaar, C.C.; Van Rietbergen, B.; Huiskes, R. A fibril-reinforced poroviscoelastic swelling model for articular cartilage. J. Biomech. 2005, 38, 1195–1204.
  69. Huyghe, J.M.; Jannsen, J. Quadriphasic mechanics of swelling incompressible porous media. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 1997, 35, 793–802.
  70. Lai, W.M.; Hou, J.S.; Mow, V.C. A triphasic theory for the swelling and deformation behaviors of articular cartilage. J. Biomech. Eng. 1991, 113, 245–258.
  71. Linka, K.; Schäfer, A.; Hillgärtner, M.; Itskov, M.; Knobe, M.; Kuhl, C.; Hitpass, L.; Truhn, D.; Thuering, J.; Nebelung, S. Towards Patient-Specific Computational Modelling of Articular Cartilage on the Basis of Advanced Multiparametric MRI Techniques. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–13.
  72. Räsänen, L.P.; Tanska, P.; Mononen, M.E.; Lammentausta, E.; Zbýň, Š.; Venäläinen, M.S.; Szomolanyi, P.; van Donkelaar, C.C.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Trattnig, S.; et al. Spatial variation of fixed charge density in knee joint cartilage from sodium MRI—Implication on knee joint mechanics under static loading. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3387–3396.
  73. Räsänen, L.P.; Tanska, P.; Zbýň, Š.; van Donkelaar, C.C.; Trattnig, S.; Nieminen, M.T.; Korhonen, R.K. The effect of fixed charge density and cartilage swelling on mechanics of knee joint cartilage during simulated gait. J. Biomech. 2017, 61, 34–44.
  74. Park, J.Y.; Kim, J.K.; Cheon, J.E.; Lee, M.C.; Han, H.S. Meniscus Stiffness Measured with Shear Wave Elastography is Correlated with Meniscus Degeneration. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2020, 46, 297–304.
  75. Adam, C.; Eckstein, F.; Milz, S.; Schulte, E.; Becker, C.; Putz, R. The distribution of cartilage thickness in the knee-joints of old-aged individuals measurement by A-mode ultrasound. Clin. Biomech. 1998, 13, 1–10.
  76. Liukkonen, J.; Lehenkari, P.; Hirvasniemi, J.; Joukainen, A.; Virén, T.; Saarakkala, S.; Nieminen, M.T.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Töyräs, J. Ultrasound Arthroscopy of Human Knee Cartilage and Subchondral Bone in vivo. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2014, 40, 2039–2047.
  77. Schmitz, R.J.; Wang, H.M.; Polprasert, D.R.; Kraft, R.A.; Pietrosimone, B.G. Evaluation of knee cartilage thickness: A comparison between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging methods. Knee 2017, 24, 217–223.
  78. Richards, R.E.; Andersen, M.S.; Harlaar, J.; Noort, J.C. Van Den Relationship between knee joint contact forces and external knee joint moments in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis: Effects of gait modi fi cations. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2018, 26, 1203–1214.
  79. Marouane, H.; Shirazi-Adl, A.; Adouni, M. Alterations in knee contact forces and centers in stance phase of gait: A detailed lower extremity musculoskeletal model. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 185–192.
  80. Adouni, M.; Shirazi-Adl, A. Evaluation of knee joint muscle forces and tissue stresses-strains during gait in severe OA versus normal subjects. J. Orthop. Res. 2014, 32, 69–78.
  81. Besier, T.F.; Gold, G.E.; Delp, S.L.; Fredericson, M.; Beaupré, G.S. The influence of femoral internal and external rotation on cartilage stresses within the patellofemoral joint. J. Orthop. Res. 2008, 26, 1627–1635.
  82. Delp, S.L.; Anderson, F.C.; Arnold, A.S.; Loan, P.; Habib, A.; John, C.T.; Guendelman, E.; Thelen, D.G. OpenSim: Open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 54, 1940–1950.
  83. Burton, W.S.; Myers, C.A.; Rullkoetter, P.J. Machine learning for rapid estimation of lower extremity muscle and joint loading during activities of daily living. J. Biomech. 2021, 123, 110439.
  84. Halilaj, E.; Rajagopal, A.; Fiterau, M.; Hicks, J.L.; Hastie, T.J.; Delp, S.L. Machine learning in human movement biomechanics: Best practices, common pitfalls, and new opportunities. J. Biomech. 2018, 81, 1–11.
  85. Ardestani, M.M.; Chen, Z.; Wang, L.; Lian, Q.; Liu, Y.; He, J.; Li, D.; Jin, Z. A neural network approach for determining gait modifications to reduce the contact force in knee joint implant. Med. Eng. Phys. 2014, 36, 1253–1265.
  86. Ardestani, M.M.; Chen, Z.; Wang, L.; Lian, Q.; Liu, Y.; He, J.; Li, D.; Jin, Z. Feed forward artificial neural network to predict contact force at medial knee joint: Application to gait modification. Neurocomputing 2014, 139, 114–129.
  87. Kokkotis, C.; Moustakidis, S.; Papageorgiou, E.; Giakas, G.; Tsaopoulos, D.E. Machine learning in knee osteoarthritis: A review. Osteoarthr. Cartil. Open 2020, 2, 100069.
  88. Rooks, N.B.; Schneider, M.T.Y.; Erdemir, A.; Halloran, J.P.; Laz, P.J.; Shelburne, K.B.; Hume, D.R.; Imhauser, C.W.; Zaylor, W.; Elmasry, S.; et al. Deciphering the “art” in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Variations in Model Development. J. Biomech. Eng. 2021, 143, 1–12.
  89. Hume, D.R.; Navacchia, A.; Ali, A.A.; Shelburne, K.B. The interaction of muscle moment arm, knee laxity, and torque in a multi-scale musculoskeletal model of the lower limb. J. Biomech. 2018, 76, 173–180.
  90. Navacchia, A.; Hume, D.R.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Shelburne, K.B. A computationally efficient strategy to estimate muscle forces in a finite element musculoskeletal model of the lower limb. J. Biomech. 2019, 84, 94–102.
  91. Shelburne, K.B.; Torry, M.R.; Pandy, M.G. Muscle, ligament, and joint-contact forces at the knee during walking. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 1948–1956.
  92. Tanska, P.; Mononen, M.E.; Korhonen, R.K. A multi-scale finite element model for investigation of chondrocyte mechanics in normal and medial meniscectomy human knee joint during walking. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 1397–1406.
  93. Esrafilian, A.; Stenroth, L.; Mononen, M.E.; Tanska, P.; Avela, J.; Korhonen, R.K. EMG-Assisted Muscle Force Driven Finite Element Model of the Knee Joint with Fibril-Reinforced Poroelastic Cartilages and Menisci. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–16.
  94. Halloran, J.P.; Sibole, S.; Van Donkelaar, C.C.; Van Turnhout, M.C.; Oomens, C.W.J.; Weiss, J.A.; Guilak, F.; Erdemir, A. Multiscale mechanics of articular cartilage: Potentials and challenges of coupling musculoskeletal, joint, and microscale computational models. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 40, 2456–2474.
  95. Guilak, F.; Mow, V.C. The mechanical environment of the chondrocyte: A biphasic finite element model of cell-matrix interactions in articular cartilage. J. Biomech. 2000, 33, 1663–1673.
  96. Fitzpatrick, C.K.; Baldwin, M.A.; Rullkoetter, P.J. Computationally efficient finite element evaluation of natural patellofemoral mechanics. J. Biomech. Eng. 2010, 132, 1–8.
  97. Maas, S.A.; Ateshian, G.A.; Weiss, J.A. FEBio: History and Advances. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 19, 279–299.
  98. Maas, S.A.; Ellis, B.J.; Ateshian, G.A.; Weiss, J.A. FEBio: Finite elements for biomechanics. J. Biomech. Eng. 2012, 134, 1–10.
  99. Erdemir, A.; Guess, T.M.; Halloran, J.; Tadepalli, S.C.; Morrison, T.M. Considerations for reporting finite element analysis studies in biomechanics. J. Biomech. 2012, 45, 625–633.
  100. Korhonen, R.K.; Laasanen, M.S.; Töyräs, J.; Lappalainen, R.; Helminen, H.J.; Jurvelin, J.S. Fibril reinforced poroelastic model predicts specifically mechanical behavior of normal, proteoglycan depleted and collagen degraded articular cartilage. J. Biomech. 2003, 36, 1373–1379.
  101. DiSilvestro, M.R.; Francis Suh, J.K. Biphasic poroviscoelastic characteristics of proteoglycan-depleted articular cartilage: Simulation of degeneration. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2002, 30, 792–800.
  102. Korhonen, R.K.; Laasanen, M.S.; Töyräs, J.; Rieppob, J.; Hirvonen, J.; Helminen, H.J.; Jurvelin, J.S. Comparison of the equilibrium response of articular cartilage in unconfined compression, confined compression and indentation. J. Biomech. 2002, 35, 903–909.
  103. Orozco, G.A.; Bolcos, P.; Mohammadi, A.; Tanaka, M.S.; Yang, M.; Link, T.M.; Ma, B.; Li, X.; Tanska, P.; Korhonen, R.K. Prediction of local fixed charge density loss in cartilage following ACL injury and reconstruction: A computational proof-of-concept study with MRI follow-up. J. Orthop. Res. 2021, 39, 1064–1081.
  104. Eskelinen, A.S.A.; Tanska, P.; Florea, C.; Orozco, G.A.; Julkunen, P.; Grodzinsky, A.J.; Korhonen, R.K. Mechanobiological model for simulation of injured cartilage degradation via proinflammatory cytokines and mechanical. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2020, 16, 1–25.
  105. Shim, V.B.; Hunter, P.J.; Pivonka, P.; Fernandez, J.W. A multiscale framework based on the Physiome markup languages for exploring the initiation of osteoarthritis at the bone-cartilage interface. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 58, 3532–3536.
  106. Peña, E.; Calvo, B.; Martínez, M.A.; Doblaré, M. Effect of the size and location of osteochondral defects in degenerative arthritis. A finite element simulation. Comput. Biol. Med. 2007, 37, 376–387.
  107. Andriacchi, T.P.; Briant, P.L.; Bevill, S.L.; Koo, S. Rotational Changes at the Knee after ACL Injury Cause Cartilage Thinning. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 442, 39–44.
  108. Mononen, M.E.; Julkunen, P.; Töyräs, J.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Kiviranta, I.; Korhonen, R.K. Alterations in structure and properties of collagen network of osteoarthritic and repaired cartilage modify knee joint stresses. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2011, 10, 357–369.
  109. Mononen, M.E.; Mikkola, M.T.; Julkunen, P.; Ojala, R.; Nieminen, M.T.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Korhonen, R.K. Effect of superficial collagen patterns and fibrillation of femoral articular cartilage on knee joint mechanics—A 3D finite element analysis. J. Biomech. 2012, 45, 579–587.
  110. Freutel, M.; Schmidt, H.; Dürselen, L.; Ignatius, A.; Galbusera, F. Finite element modeling of soft tissues: Material models, tissue interaction and challenges. Clin. Biomech. 2014, 29, 363–372.
  111. Elahi, S.A.; Tanska, P.; Mukherjee, S.; Korhonen, R.K.; Geris, L.; Jonkers, I.; Famaey, N. Guide to mechanical characterization of articular cartilage and hydrogel constructs based on a systematic in silico parameter sensitivity analysis. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 124, 104795.
  112. LeRoux, M.A.; Setton, L.A. Experimental and biphasic FEM determinations of the material properties and hydraulic permeability of the meniscus in tension. J. Biomech. Eng. 2002, 124, 315–321.
  113. Wang, H.; Koff, M.F.; Potter, H.G.; Warren, R.F.; Rodeo, S.A.; Maher, S.A. An MRI-compatible loading device to assess knee joint cartilage deformation: Effect of preloading and inter-test repeatability. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 2934–2940.
  114. Fitzpatrick, C.K.; Rullkoetter, P.J. Estimating total knee replacement joint load ratios from kinematics. J. Biomech. 2014, 47, 3003–3011.
  115. Mootanah, R.; Imhauser, C.W.; Reisse, F.; Carpanen, D.; Walker, R.W.; Koff, M.F.; Lenhoff, M.W.; Rozbruch, S.R.; Fragomen, A.T.; Dewan, Z.; et al. Development and validation of a computational model of the knee joint for the evaluation of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2014, 17, 1502–1517.
  116. Halonen, K.S.; Mononen, M.E.; Jurvelin, J.S.; To, J. Deformation of articular cartilage during static loading of a knee joint—Experimental and finite element analysis. J. Biomech. 2014, 47, 2467–2474.
  117. Chan, D.D.; Cai, L.; Butz, K.D.; Trippel, S.B.; Nauman, E.A.; Neu, C.P. In vivo articular cartilage deformation: Noninvasive quantification of intratissue strain during joint contact in the human knee. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–14.
  118. Englund, M. The role of biomechanics in the initiation and progression of OA of the knee. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2010, 24, 39–46.
  119. Ali, A.A.; Shalhoub, S.S.; Cyr, A.J.; Fitzpatrick, C.K.; Maletsky, L.P.; Rullkoetter, P.J.; Shelburne, K.B. Validation of predicted patellofemoral mechanics in a finite element model of the healthy and cruciate-deficient knee. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 302–309.
  120. Adams, J.G.; McAlindon, T.; Dimasi, M.; Carey, J.; Eustace, S. Contribution of meniscal extrusion and cartilage loss to joint space narrowing in osteoarthritis. Clin. Radiol. 1999, 54, 502–506.
  121. Gale, D.R.; Chaisson, C.E.; Totterman, S.M.S.; Schwartz, R.K.; Gale, M.E.; Felson, D. Meniscal subluxation: Association with osteoarthritis and joint space narrowing. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 1999, 7, 526–532.
  122. Besier, T.F.; Gold, G.E.; Beaupré, G.S.; Delp, S.L. A modeling framework to estimate patellofemoral joint cartilage stress in vivo. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 1924–1930.
  123. Scarvell, J.M.; Sc, B.A.; Smith, P.N.; Refshauge, K.M.; Galloway, H.R. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis of Kinematics in Osteoarthritic Knees. J. Arthroplasty 2007, 22, 383–393.
  124. Kawashima, K.; Tomita, T. In vivo three-dimensional motion analysis of osteoarthritic knees. Mod. Rheumatol. 2013, 23, 646–652.
  125. Farrokhi, S.; Keyak, J.H.; Powers, C.M. Individuals with patellofemoral pain exhibit greater patellofemoral joint stress: A finite element analysis study. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2011, 19, 287–294.
  126. Liu, F.; Kozanek, M.; Hosseini, A.; Van de Velde, S.K.; Gill, T.J.; Rubash, H.E.; Li, G. In vivo tibiofemoral cartilage deformation during the stance phase of gait. J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 658–665.
  127. Li, J.S.; Tsai, T.Y.; Wang, S.; Li, P.; Kwon, Y.M.; Freiberg, A.; Rubash, H.E.; Li, G. Prediction of in Vivo Knee Joint Kinematics Using a Combined Dual Fluoroscopy Imaging and Statistical Shape Modeling Technique. J. Biomech. Eng. 2014, 136, 124503.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback