Functional knee axis based on isokinetic dynamometry data: Comparison of two methods, MRI validation, and effect on...

This paper compares geometry-based knee axes of rotation (transepicondylar axis and geometric center axis) and motion-based functional knee axes of rotation (fAoR). Two algorithms are evaluated to calculate fAoRs: Gamage and Lasenby's sphere fitting algorithm (GL) and Ehrig et al.'s axis transformation algorithm (SARA). Calculations are based on 3D motion data acquired during isokinetic dynamometry. AoRs are validated with the equivalent axis based on static MR-images. We quantified the difference in orientation between two knee axes of rotation as the angle between the projection of the axes in the transversal and frontal planes, and the difference in location as the distance between the intersection points of the axes with the sagittal plane. Maximum differences between fAoRs resulting from GL and SARA were 5.7° and 15.4mm, respectively. Maximum differences between fAoRs resulting from GL or SARA and the equivalent axis were 5.4°/11.5mm and 8.6°/12.8mm, respectively. Differences between geometry-based axes and EA are larger than differences between fAoR and EA both in orientation (maximum 10.6°).and location (maximum 20.8mm). Knee joint angle trajectories and the corresponding accelerations for the different knee axes of rotation were estimated using Kalman smoothing. For the joint angles, the maximum RMS difference with the MRI-based equivalent axis, which was used as a reference, was 3°. For the knee joint accelerations, the maximum RMS difference with the equivalent axis was 20°/s(2). Functional knee axes of rotation describe knee motion better than geometry-based axes. GL performs better than SARA for calculations based on experimental dynamometry.