Geometric variation of the human tibia-fibula: a public dataset of tibia-fibula surface meshes and statistical shape model.
Bone model
Lower extremity
Musculoskeletal model
Statistical shape modelling
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
16
08
2022
accepted:
15
12
2022
entrez:
22
2
2023
pubmed:
23
2
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Variation in tibia geometry is a risk factor for tibial stress fractures. Geometric variability in bones is often quantified using statistical shape modelling. Statistical shape models (SSM) offer a method to assess three-dimensional variation of structures and identify the source of variation. Although SSM have been used widely to assess long bones, there is limited open-source datasets of this kind. Overall, the creation of SSM can be an expensive process, that requires advanced skills. A publicly available tibia shape model would be beneficial as it enables researchers to improve skills. Further, it could benefit health, sport and medicine with the potential to assess geometries suitable for medical equipment, and aid in clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to: (i) quantify tibial geometry using a SSM; and (ii) provide the SSM and associated code as an open-source dataset. Lower limb computed tomography (CT) scans from the right tibia-fibula of 30 cadavers (male Overall size was the main source of variation in all three models accounting for 90.31%, 84.24% and 85.06%. Other sources of geometric variation in the tibia surface models included overall and midshaft thickness; prominence and size of the condyle plateau, tibial tuberosity, and anterior crest; and axial torsion of the tibial shaft. Further variations in the tibia-fibula model included midshaft thickness of the fibula; fibula head position relative to the tibia; tibia and fibula anterior-posterior curvature; fibula posterior curvature; tibia plateau rotation; and interosseous width. The main sources of variation in the cortical-trabecular model other than general size included variation in the medulla cavity diameter; cortical thickness; anterior-posterior shaft curvature; and the volume of trabecular bone in the proximal and distal ends of the bone. Variations that could increase the risk of tibial stress injury were observed, these included general tibial thickness, midshaft thickness, tibial length and medulla cavity diameter (indicative of cortical thickness). Further research is needed to better understand the effect of these tibial-fibula shape characteristics on tibial stress and injury risk. This SSM, the associated code, and three use examples for the SSM have been provided in an open-source dataset. The developed tibial surface models and statistical shape model will be made available for use at: https://simtk.org/projects/ssm_tibia.
Sections du résumé
Background
Variation in tibia geometry is a risk factor for tibial stress fractures. Geometric variability in bones is often quantified using statistical shape modelling. Statistical shape models (SSM) offer a method to assess three-dimensional variation of structures and identify the source of variation. Although SSM have been used widely to assess long bones, there is limited open-source datasets of this kind. Overall, the creation of SSM can be an expensive process, that requires advanced skills. A publicly available tibia shape model would be beneficial as it enables researchers to improve skills. Further, it could benefit health, sport and medicine with the potential to assess geometries suitable for medical equipment, and aid in clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to: (i) quantify tibial geometry using a SSM; and (ii) provide the SSM and associated code as an open-source dataset.
Methods
Lower limb computed tomography (CT) scans from the right tibia-fibula of 30 cadavers (male
Results
Overall size was the main source of variation in all three models accounting for 90.31%, 84.24% and 85.06%. Other sources of geometric variation in the tibia surface models included overall and midshaft thickness; prominence and size of the condyle plateau, tibial tuberosity, and anterior crest; and axial torsion of the tibial shaft. Further variations in the tibia-fibula model included midshaft thickness of the fibula; fibula head position relative to the tibia; tibia and fibula anterior-posterior curvature; fibula posterior curvature; tibia plateau rotation; and interosseous width. The main sources of variation in the cortical-trabecular model other than general size included variation in the medulla cavity diameter; cortical thickness; anterior-posterior shaft curvature; and the volume of trabecular bone in the proximal and distal ends of the bone.
Conclusion
Variations that could increase the risk of tibial stress injury were observed, these included general tibial thickness, midshaft thickness, tibial length and medulla cavity diameter (indicative of cortical thickness). Further research is needed to better understand the effect of these tibial-fibula shape characteristics on tibial stress and injury risk. This SSM, the associated code, and three use examples for the SSM have been provided in an open-source dataset. The developed tibial surface models and statistical shape model will be made available for use at: https://simtk.org/projects/ssm_tibia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36811007
doi: 10.7717/peerj.14708
pii: 14708
pmc: PMC9939022
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.20454462.v3']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14708Informations de copyright
© 2023 Keast et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
J Orthop Res. 2018 Nov;36(11):3043-3052
pubmed: 29917267
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010 May;25(4):372-7
pubmed: 20096977
J Sci Med Sport. 2020 Feb;23(2):145-150
pubmed: 31594711
J Biomech. 2016 Oct 3;49(14):3576-3581
pubmed: 27653375
Bone. 2013 Aug;55(2):359-66
pubmed: 23624291
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8
pubmed: 11934426
Clin Sports Med. 1997 Apr;16(2):225-38
pubmed: 9238306
J Athl Train. 2017 Oct;52(10):966-975
pubmed: 28937802
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2010 Dec;32(12):2262-75
pubmed: 20975122
Sci Rep. 2019 May 21;9(1):7649
pubmed: 31114000
Br J Sports Med. 2002 Apr;36(2):95-101
pubmed: 11916889
J Anat. 2019 Jan;234(1):132-144
pubmed: 30393864
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):172-85
pubmed: 21948324
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2022 Jun;25(8):875-886
pubmed: 34730046
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Aug;31(8):1088-93
pubmed: 10449008
Bone. 2000 Sep;27(3):437-44
pubmed: 10962357
Am J Sports Med. 1991 Nov-Dec;19(6):647-52
pubmed: 1781506
Gait Posture. 2020 Mar;77:269-275
pubmed: 32092603
J Biomech. 2017 Jun 14;58:187-194
pubmed: 28554493
J Biomech Eng. 2020 Feb 1;142(2):
pubmed: 31201743
Clin J Sport Med. 2015 May;25(3):230-6
pubmed: 24977954
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Sep;122(1):23-7
pubmed: 12923901
BMJ. 2016 Oct 10;355:i5295
pubmed: 27758792
Sports Med. 1998 Oct;26(4):265-79
pubmed: 9820925