Comparison of capacitive versus resistive joint contact stress sensors

被引:31
作者
Martinelli, L.
Hurschler, C.
Rosenbaum, D.
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Muenster, Dept Orthopaed, Mot Anal Lab, D-48149 Munster, Germany
[2] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Orthopaed, Lab Biomech & Biomat, D-3000 Hannover, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.blo.0000218730.59838.6a
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Cartilage contact stress elevations might be associated with pain or other symptoms after malunited, incongruous intra-articular fractures. Studies identifying fractures with patterns of elevated contact stresses would help to ensure more appropriate choices of treatment. However, appropriate instrumentation for such studies is crucial. We tested two such systems, one capacitive and one resistive, under identical loading conditions presumed to occur in the ankle. We used a materials testing machine and customized-loading fixtures to measure force detection error, contact area error, repeatability, homogeneity, creep, and one-axis and two-axis bending artifacts. The loading regimen caused pressures up to 2.5 MPa. An error in force detection between -3% and +5% was observed with the capacitive sensor whereas an error between -12% and +20% was observed with the resistive sensor. Repeatability and homogeneity were greater for the capacitive sensor. Errors in contact area measurement were less than 2% for the resistive sensor and less than 6% for the capacitive sensor. The resistive sensor could not conform to spherical surfaces without crinkling. Creep artifact was observed with both sensors. We concluded that the capacitive sensor had superior performance even though its thickness and high compliance may be disadvantageous in intraarticular measurements. The resistive sensor is required for use where higher pressures are expected despite its inferior accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:214 / 220
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
  • [1] Bertsch C, 2001, UNFALLCHIRURG, V104, P426
  • [2] New methods for assessing cartilage contact stress after articular fracture
    Brown, TD
    Rudert, MJ
    Grosland, NM
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2004, (423) : 52 - 58
  • [3] An improved method for measuring tibiofemoral contact areas in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of K-scan sensor and Fuji film
    Harris, ML
    Morberg, P
    Bruce, WJM
    Walsh, WR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1999, 32 (09) : 951 - 958
  • [4] Reliability of an in-shoe pressure measurement system during treadmill walking
    Kernozek, TW
    LaMott, EE
    Dancisak, MJ
    [J]. FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 1996, 17 (04) : 204 - 209
  • [5] Luo ZP, 1998, J REHABIL RES DEV, V35, P186
  • [6] MACKENZIE JR, 1994, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P127
  • [7] Nuber G W, 1989, Clin Podiatr Med Surg, V6, P615
  • [8] Static and dynamic response of a multiplexed-array piezoresistive contact sensor
    Otto, JK
    Brown, TD
    Callaghan, JJ
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS, 1999, 39 (04) : 317 - 323
  • [9] ANKLE JOINT BIOMECHANICS
    PROCTER, P
    PAUL, JP
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1982, 15 (09) : 627 - 634
  • [10] NOVEL Award 1996: 2nd prize - Tenodeses do not fully restore ankle joint loading characteristics: A biomechanical in vitro investigation in the hind foot
    Rosenbaum, D
    Bertsch, C
    Claes, LE
    [J]. CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 1997, 12 (03) : 202 - 209