Solidification procedure adapted to locating joint centre

Propagation of soft tissue artifacts to the center of rotation: a model for the correction of functional calibration techniques

This paper presents a mathematical model for the propagation of errors in body segment kinematics to the location of the center of rotation. Three functional calibration techniques, usually employed for the gleno-humeral joint, are studied: the methods based on the pivot of the instantaneous helical axis (PIHA) or the finite helical axis (PFHA), and the "symmetrical center of rotation estimation" (SCoRE). A procedure for correcting the effect of soft tissue artifacts is also proposed, based on the equations of those techniques and a model of the artifact, like the one that can be obtained by double calibration. An experiment with a mechanical analog was performed to validate the procedure and compare the performance of each technique. The raw error (between 57 and 68mm) was reduced by a proportion of between 1:6 and less than 1:15, depending on the artifact model and the mathematical method. The best corrections were obtained by the SCoRE method. Some recommendations about the experimental setup for functional calibration techniques and the choice of a mathematical method are derived from theoretical considerations about the formulas and the results of the experiment.

Comparison of the SCoRE and HA methods for locating in vivo the glenohumeral joint centre

A recent paper has described a new functional method, the symmetrical centre of rotation (SCoRE), for locating joint centre position [Ehrig, R.M., Taylor, W.R., Duda, G.N., Heller, M.O., 2006. A survey of formal methods for determining the centre of rotation of ball joints. Journal of Biomechanics 39 (15), 2798-2809]. For in vitro analyses, the SCoRE method showed better precision than helical axis (HA) or sphere fitting methods. Despites HA determination is very sensitive to small angular velocity, the International Society of Biomechanics has recommended to use HA for locating the glenohumeral joint centre. This paper aims at comparing the SCoRE method with the HA method for locating in vivo the glenohumeral joint centre according to the movement characteristics. Nine subjects performed 10 cycles of three different movements at two different velocities. For each test (combination of movements) the location of the centre of rotation was estimated with both methods (SCoRE and HA). Analyses focused on the 3D location of the glenohumeral joint centre and on the repeatability of location (standard deviation). This study showed that SCoRE and HA methods yielded the same GH location. Nevertheless, with SCoRE method, the location of the glenohumeral joint centre was different according to the test. This study evidenced that the SCoRE method was more precise than HA method (error of 3 mm versus 4.6 mm) and that the GH location with the SCoRE method was not affected by movements with slow velocities.