Table 1.
Anthropometric data of the ten patients with the instrumented Hip III implant of the OrthoLoad database.
Fig 1.
Marker locations of the motion capture data used for the patient-specific parameter optimization of the model.
Fig 2.
The comparison of the simulated (AnyBody, AB) and in vivo (OrthoLoad, OL) resultant HJF for one-leg stance (left) and level walking (right).
The PFP is illustrated by the two dashed, vertical lines. For one-leg stance (left), the 75% threshold of the maximum resultant HJF to identify the plateau phase is illustrated by the dashed, horizontal line.
Table 2.
Deviations between simulated and in vivo HJF for one-leg stance and level walking for each combination of the four investigated parameters.
Only successful simulations were included. The parameter combinations with the smallest MAPEPFP, the smallest sum of RMSEML, RMSEPA and RMSEIS, as well as the smallest RMSER are marked in grey.
Table 3.
Individual results for one-leg stance and level walking averaged over the full motion cycle for CT-HJW, 90 N/cm2 muscle strength, PN recruitment, and simple muscle model.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) are presented in %BW for the AnyBody (AB) simulations, the OrthoLoad (OL) in vivo measurements and the MAE of the AnyBody simulations in each direction of the HJF. MAE above 50%BW are marked in grey.
Fig 3.
Results for one-leg stance using CT-HJW, 90 N/cm2 muscle strength, PN recruitment, and simple muscle model (n = 10).
Fig 4.
Results for level walking using CT-HJW, 90 N/cm2 muscle strength, PN recruitment, and simple muscle model (n = 10).
Fig 5.
Relationship between muscle strength and the mean absolute error of the resultant HJF (MAER) over the full motion cycle for CT-HJW, PN recruitment, and simple muscle model.
Significant differences are marked with an asterisk (*).
Table 4.
Mean deviations between simulation and in vivo peak force results in previous studies for one-leg stance and level walking.