Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 9;50(6):666–679. doi: 10.1007/s10439-022-02941-0

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Workflow of the presented study. The first row shows the manual labor required for model generation by the atlas-based FE knee joint model framework. (a and b) Five anatomical dimensions were measured from MR images of each subject (N = 28) considered in this study to generate MRI-based knee joint atlas models. Anatomical landmarks were also measured similarly from clinical MR images (OAI database) for each knee joint geometry (N = 21) in the atlas library, and this information was linked with a corresponding medial compartment atlas model. (c) Finding best-matched atlas from atlas library based on minimum root mean square error (RMSE) of anatomical landmarks between considered subject and all 21 atlases in atlas library. (d) The optimal atlas compartment model was scaled to match anatomical landmarks of the considered subject by multiplication of its nodal coordinate values with percentage difference in AP, ML and tibiofemoral cartilage thickness directions (dx, dy and dz) between the subject data and best-matched atlas. (e) The biomechanical response of the scaled atlas FE compartment model was simulated using the physiologically relevant gait loading (50% of total joint loads obtained from whole knee joint simulations were assumed to occur in the medial compartment) based on body weight (BW) of the subject. The contribution of medial meniscus was considered in the compartment model by subtracting the simplified gait loading by the average contribution of medial meniscus.