DOI : https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.12.2.15293

Comparative Analysis of the Motion and Kinematics of the Knee Joint Using Simulation Techniques

Fernando Valencia (1), María Prado–Novoa (2), Fernando Nadal (3)
(1) Department of mechanical engineering, University of Málaga , C/Dr. Ortiz Ramos s/n, Málaga, 29071, Spain
(2) Department of mechanical engineering / Biomechanical laboratory, University of Málaga , C/Dr. Ortiz Ramos s/n, Málaga, 29071, Spain
(3) Department of mechanical engineering, University of Málaga , C/Dr. Ortiz Ramos s/n, Málaga, 29071, Spain
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Valencia, Fernando, et al. “Comparative Analysis of the Motion and Kinematics of the Knee Joint Using Simulation Techniques”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, Apr. 2022, pp. 614-20, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.12.2.15293.
Citation Format :
The World Health Organization reports 30 million people worldwide who need prosthetics and orthotics. Reports by the Consejo Nacional para la Igualdad de Discapacidades de Ecuador (CONADIS) also inform that there are 221,913 people with disabilities. This high demand has been difficult to satisfy, mainly due to the high cost of these devices. Local availability is often limited to a short/small set of size and weight configurations, forcing the patient to settle for a non-optimal option. This paper analyses the kinematics of the knee joint, based on both human gait patterns according to standard ISO 14243-1:2009, ASTM F3141:2017, and experimental results computed by our research group, which has been obtained via 3D videogrammetry techniques integrated with two force platforms. The kinematics obtained from OSSUR2000 and Streifeneder 3A20 knee joint mechanisms have been compared. For this study, SolidWorks motion kinematics and motion simulation have been used with 3D scanning technology to obtain the geometry of these mechanisms. Once analyzed and compared, a knee joint mechanism's basic design presents the flexibility to adapt to different configurations as its main feature. Finite element analysis (FEA) is important to determine the safety factor before testing it on patients. The boundary conditions are considered the parameters of the target population. According to each case, the design is considered a more adjusted safety factor and then the manufacturing step.

“Organización Mundial de la Salud,” Discapacidad y Rehabilitación, 2020. .

CONADIS, “Consejo Nacional Para La Igualdad De Discapacidades,” 2019. .

X. Liu et al., “Kinetostatic Analysis for Four-Bar Linkage Mechanism of Prosthetic Knee Joint,” J. Mech. Med. Biol., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1-12, 2019, doi: 10.1142/S0219519419500180.

N. Sado, H. Shiotani, J. Saeki, and Y. Kawakami, “Positional difference of malleoli-midpoint from three-dimensional geometric centre of rotation of ankle and its effect on ankle joint kinetics,” Gait Posture, vol. 83, pp. 223-229, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.10.018.

V. J. Harandi et al., “Gait compensatory mechanisms in unilateral transfemoral amputees,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 77, no. xxxx, pp. 95-106, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.11.006.

Z. JelaÄić, R. Dedić, and H. Dindo, Prosthetic design and prototype development. 2020.

Y. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Mo, Y. Yang, and W. Ge, “Optimization and Dynamics of Six-bar Mechanism Bionic Knee,” WRC SARA 2019 - World Robot Conf. Symp. Adv. Robot. Autom. 2019, vol. i, pp. 91-96, 2019, doi: 10.1109/WRC-SARA.2019.8931941.

X. H. Wang et al., “A preclinical method for evaluating the kinematics of knee prostheses,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 66, pp. 84-90, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.03.003.

Y. Okita, N. Yamasaki, T. Nakamura, T. Kubo, A. Mitsumoto, and T. Akune, “Kinetic differences between level walking and ramp descent in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation using a prosthetic knee without a stance control mechanism,” Gait Posture, vol. 63, no. April, pp. 80-85, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.04.043.

Motion Lab Systems, “Knee Alignment Device,” pp. 2-20, 2011.

S. Day, Using rapid prototyping in prosthetics: Design considerations, Second Edi. Elsevier Ltd., 2019.

O. 2000, “í–ssur Dynamic Solutions í–ssur Dynamic Solutions Total Knee ® 2100,” pp. 100-102, 2019.

A. Jochum and V. Seitz, “Streifeneder ortho production GmbH,” 2019-06-11, pp. 1-264, 2019.

K. Mí¢aref, N. Martinet, C. Grumillier, S. Ghannouchi, J. M. Andrí©, and J. Paysant, “Kinematics in the Terminal Swing Phase of Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees: Microprocessor-Controlled Versus Swing-Phase Control Prosthetic Knees,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 919-925, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.025.

“https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm Pí¡gina 1 de 76,” Natl. Aeronaut. Sp. Adm., vol. Volume I, pp. 1-76, 2020.

C. D. Fryar, Q. Gu, C. L. Ogden, and K. M. Flegal, Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014, no. 39. 2016.

R. Frank, “Prótesis Imbabura Calidad y Accesibilidad para Todos.,” 2020.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).