MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283453037 · doi:10.1115/1.4054866

Model-Based Acetabular Cup Orientation Optimization Based on Minimizing the Risk of Edge-Loading and Implant Impingement Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

2022· article· en· W4283453037 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Danaei, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)Pelvic tiltEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPelvisFemurAcetabulumTotal hip arthroplastyComputer scienceImplantOrthodonticsGround reaction forceRange (aeronautics)Tilt (camera)Materials scienceSurgeryMathematicsMedicineComputer visionGeometryPhysicsKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a computationally efficient model-based method for determining patient-specific optimal acetabular cup alignment for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is presented. The proposed algorithm minimizes the risk of implant impingement and edge-loading, which are reported as the major causes of hip dislocation following THA. First, by using motion capture data recorded from the patient performing different daily activities, the hip contact force and the relative orientation of the femur and pelvis are calculated by a musculoskeletal model. Then, by defining two quantitative indices, i.e., angular impingement distance and angular edge-loading distance (AED), the risk of impingement and edge-loading are assessed for a wide range of cup alignments. Finally, three optimization criteria are introduced to estimate the optimal cup alignment with a tradeoff between the risk of impingement and edge loading. The results show that patient-specific characteristics such as pelvic tilt could significantly change the optimal cup alignment, especially the value of cup anteversion. Therefore, in some cases, the well-known Lewinnek safe zone may not be optimal, or even safe. Unlike other dynamic model-based methods, in this work, the need for force plate measurements is eliminated by estimating the ground reaction forces and moments, which makes this method more practical and cost-efficient. Furthermore, the low computational complexity due to analytical formulas makes this method suitable for both pre-operative and intra-operative planning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207