Search

Accurate estimation of the hip joint centre (HJC) location is critical for modelling the kinematics and kinetics of the lower limb. Regression equations are commonly used to predict the HJC from anatomical landmarks on the pelvis, such as those published by Tylkowski et al., Andriacchi et al., Bell et al., and Seidel et al. Using a population of 159 CT-segmented pelvises, we assessed the accuracy of these methods as originally reported, and refined their parameters based on our larger cohort. We found the Tylkowski, Bell, and Seidel methods had mean Euclidean errors of 22.5, 26.4, and 17.9 mm, respectively. With new parameters for each method 'back-calculated' from our pelvic population, each method's error was reduced by an average of 69 %, with mean absolute errors of 7.9, 6.6, and 5.9 mm, respectively. For all methods, error has been reduced to below 1 cm, well below published levels for pelvic landmark estimation methods. These results highlight the need to validate and re-calibrate joint centre prediction methods on large, representative datasets to account for natural morphological variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Determination of the hip joint centre (HJC) is important to accurately estimate hip joint motion, moments and muscle forces. The most accurate method for HJC estimation without medical imaging is an area of interest in the biomechanics community, especially in a paediatric population, which has not been widely evaluated. HJC locations were calculated by sphere-fitting to the acetabulum of three-dimensional pelvises segmented from 333 CT scans of children aged 4 to 18 years old. Three methods for determining the HJC were compared: regression equations, linear scaling, and shape model prediction. The new regression equations developed in this study produced Euclidean distance errors of 6.23 mm ± 2.90 mm. Linear scaling of paediatric bone produced errors of 3.90 mm ± 2.52 mm and adult bone scaling of 5.45 mm ± 3.26 mm. Prediction of the HJC using a paediatric statistical shape model produced mean Euclidian distance errors of 2.95 mm ± 1.65 mm. Overall, shape model prediction of the HJC produced the lowest errors, with linear scaling of a mean paediatric pelvis providing better estimates than regression equations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]