HAL Id: hal-02109259
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02109259v2
Submitted on 14 Apr 2021
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Comparison of ligament, passive, and net joint moments of the lower limb computed by generic models and
inverse dynamics
Xavier Gasparutto, Eric Jacquelin, Raphaël Dumas
To cite this version:
Xavier Gasparutto, Eric Jacquelin, Raphaël Dumas. Comparison of ligament, passive, and net joint
moments of the lower limb computed by generic models and inverse dynamics. 15th International Sym-
posium on 3-D Analysis of Human Movement, Jul 2018, Manchester, France. 2 p. �hal-02109259v2�
XV International Symposium on 3-D Analysis of Human Movement 51
Wednesday July 4
th2018
P01
Comparison of ligament, passive, and net joint moments of the lower limb computed by generic models and inverse dynamics
Xavier Gasparutto, Eric Jacquelin, Raphael Dumas
Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, Lyon, France Introduction
The lower limb passive moments represent the actions of all the passive periarticular structures, including the passive components of the muscle-tendon complex and the ligaments. They significantly contribute to the power generation and absorption during gait (e.g. [1]) but the respective magnitude of the different components is not established. Moreover, although models of ligament moments were implemented in musculoskeletal models (e.g., [2]) and showed a significant influence on the musculo-tendon forces and contact forces [3], the passive moments generated by the ligaments have been never specifically evaluated.
Research Question
To understand the contribution of the ligaments to the passive moments, we propose to implement, within an inverse dynamics framework, the models of the ligament moments that were used in musculoskeletal models and to compare them to the passive and net joint moments.
Methods
Protocols to define subject-specific models of passive joint moments have been defined, e.g., [3] but can be cumbersome in a clinical environment. Thus, it was preferred to select generic models. Literature was reviewed to find models taking into account bi-articular muscles, based on in vivo measurements (for passive joint moments), with a pattern in double exponentials, and with all parameters available. Two models of passive joint moments (PM1 & PM2) and two models of ligament moments (LM1 & LM2) were found [2, 4-6]. Model parameters have been adapted to fit the joint coordinate systems (JCS) standard of the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) [7].
Ten subjects (23 to 29 years old, 79.8 ± 9.5 kg, 1.85 ± 0.06 m) participated in the study. Each subject performed three gait cycles in a gait laboratory to acquire the kinematics and ground reaction forces and to compute the ligament, passive, and net moments of the right lower limb joints.
The passive joint moments and ligament moments were computed as exponential functions of the joint angles and were compared to the net joint moments computed by inverse dynamics. The joint powers were computed as the dot products of the moments and the joint angular velocities. The dimensionless moments and powers were finally computed [8].
Results
The contributions of the passive joint moments and powers, and of the ligament moments and powers to the net joint moments and powers at different peaks corresponding to gait phases are reported in Table 1. Only flexion-extension moments were analysed.
52 XV International Symposium on 3-D Analysis of Human Movement
Wednesday July 4
th2018
Table 1: Contributions (in % of moment or power peak) of the passive and ligament actions to the net joint actions The main contributions of the passive joint moments were during the first double support phase, the single support phase and the push off phase for the hip, knee, and ankle and during the late swing specifically at the knee. Significant differences in magnitude was observed between PM1 and PM2. Moreover, time-shifts were observed between the passive joint moment and the net joint moment peaks.
The main contributions of the ligament moments were during the toe-off phase at the hip and during late swing at the hip and knee for one model (LM1) while the other model (LM2) had no substantial contribution. The ligament moment amplitude often reached the passive joint moment amplitude.
Discussion
This study compared the ligament, passive and net joint moments during gait. To the author’s knowledge, the contributions of the selected ligament and passive joint moments to the net joint moments were never assessed.
Although time-shifts were observed for some peaks, the results obtained with the models of passive joint moments were consistent with the literature that showed substantial contributions at the hip, knee and ankle when using subject-specific models [1]. These results suggest the practicality of using generic models when analysing non-pathological subjects.
Typically, one of these models (PM1 [4]) has been used as a reference for validation of musculoskeletal models [9].
Concerning the ligaments moments, they seems to either overestimate or underestimate the actions of the ligaments. One model (LM1 [6]) is adapted from a model of passive joint model without clear explanations while the other (LM2 [2]) is numerically defined to limit the joint range of motion in forward dynamics.
In conclusion, the contributions of the passive actions to the net hip, knee, and ankle moments during normal gait can be assessed using generic models of the literature but no reliable model for ligament moments seems currently available.
References
1. Whittington et al., Gait Posture 2008; 27:628-34.
2. Anderson & Pandy, Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 1999; 2: 201–31.
3. Dumas et al., Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2012; 226: 146–60.
4. Riener & Edrich, J Biomech 1999; 32: 539–44.
5. Amankwah et al., J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41: 15–32.
6. Audu & Davy, J Biomech Eng 1985; 107: 147–157.
7. Wu et al, J Biomech 2002; 35: 543–548.
8. Hof, Gait Posture 1996; 4: 222–3.
9. Arnold, Annals Biomed Eng 2010; 38: 269–279.
