U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page
You searched 8+ million full text articles

Try this search in 34+ million citations and abstracts

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 7

1.
Fig 4

Fig 4. Exemplarily calculation of the average in vivo force in a one-leg stance.. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

2.
Fig 6

Fig 6. Correlation and regression analysis between tibiofemoral angle and medial force ratio during static two-leg stance based on the models of Kettelkamp and Minns.. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

3.
Fig 3

Fig 3. Rule-based protocol for the modelling process.. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

At least three test cycles were performed to reduce learning curve effects.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

4.
Fig 2

Fig 2. Parameter acquisition for patient-specific model adaptation (exemplary).. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

(A) Long-leg radiograph, (B) knee region, (C) hip region, and (D) ankle region. The nomenclature is presented in .

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

5.
Fig 7

Fig 7. Calculated resultant knee joint forces based on the models of Maquet, Kettelkamp and Minns with corresponding in vivo forces for a one-leg stance.. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

The error indicators demonstrate the minimum/maximum values. Forces in %BW.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

6.
Fig 5

Fig 5. Resultant knee joint forces calculated for nine patients, based on the mathematical models of Kettelkamp and Minns with corresponding average in vivo force measurements for a two-leg stance.. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

The error indicators demonstrate the minimum/maximum values. Forces in %BW.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

7.
Fig 1

Fig 1. From: Evaluation and validation of 2D biomechanical models of the knee for radiograph-based preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty.

(A) Maquet’s model. (B) Kettelkamp’s model. Minns’ model (modified) [] in frontal view (C) and sagittal view (D). Joint forces (blue), external and body forces (red), soft-tissue and muscular forces (green). Abbreviations of the forces: (A) L = lateral muscular force; R = knee joint force; P = partial body weight; (B) P = lateral ligament force; Q = medial ligament force; F1 = lateral knee joint force; F2 = medial knee joint force; W = gravity force of the leg; R = ground reaction force; (C) PLL = lateral ligament force; PLM = medial ligament force; PFTL = lateral knee joint force; PFTM = medial knee joint force; PT = patellar ligament force; R = ground reaction force; (D) PT = patellar ligament force; PFT = knee joint force; PHAM = hamstring force; R = ground reaction force.

Malte Asseln, et al. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227272.

CitationFull text

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Clear Turn Off Turn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
You are here: NCBI > Literature > PubMed Central (PMC)
Support Center