Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Global workflow overview to generate patient-specific orthopaedic implants.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Femoral and tibial landmarks acquired for the morphometric analysis validation.

The condyles centers were determined from 5 points acquired on the edge of the lateral and medial plateau (blue lines).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Design steps for the personalised prosthesis.

(top) Femoral implant, from left to right: defining the medial pivot sphere; defining the condyles’ curvature; defining the anterior surface; cutting the intercondylar notch; adding pins and chamfers. (bottom) Tibial implant, from left to right: tibial baseplate contouring; adding locking mechanism for the polyethylene insert; adding the keel; adding chamfers.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Flattened contours used for over and under-hang computation.

The red and blue lines represent bone resection and implant contours respectively. Grey zones are ignored in the computation.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Segmentation accuracy.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Tibia and femur SSMs metrics, regarding the number of modes (N).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Full bone reconstruction accuracy.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Accuracy of the morphological parameters automatic determination.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Example of personalised implants designed for two patients.

Frontal, sagittal and posterior views.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 5.

Bone coverage for custom design implants (over and under hang).

More »

Table 5 Expand