Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 319–324 | Cite as

Integrity analysis of knee joint by acoustic emission technique

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 211 Downloads

Abstract

Integrity analysis of knee joint involves a detail study of several anatomical parts of knee such as bones, cartilage, tendons etc. Any damage of these anatomical parts causes several knee diseases. The incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA), a widely manifestative knee disease, particularly in aging society, increases with getting ages or due to some damages in the cartilage of knee joint. The major concern of the disease of OA is its incurability at its matured stages. However, early detection and appropriate medication can reduce the risk of this disease. As the acoustic emission (AE) technique has been using in damage evaluation of materials in non-destructive testing for years, the signal processing of AE technique has been applied for evaluating the disorderness of knee joint as well. Particularly, the present investigation focuses on the dynamical behavioral characterization of knee joint for its integrity analysis with several AE non-destructive imaging conditions. AE signals have been collected from different positions of tibia, patella, femur etc. for getting sufficient information about the condition of cartilage of knee joint. Data has been collected for participants with different ages and compared with the incident conditions of AE signals for the detail analysis of OA, a vital knee disease of aged people all over the world.

Keywords

Integrity of knee joint Osteoarthritis Acoustic emission NDE Biomarker 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI 24560297) from the MEXT of the Government of Japan. Authors express their gratefulness and thanks to Dr. Syuya Ide (M.D.) and Mr. Sakamoto Akira for supporting in data analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Robert F, Engebretsen AH, Thuan V, Steinar J, Fred AW, Lars E (2007) The anatomy of the medial part of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2000–2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hislop HJ, Avers D, Brown M (2014) Daniels and Worthingham’s muscle testing-techniques of manual examination and performance testing. Elsevier, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shrier Ian (2004) Muscle dysfunction versus wear and tear as a cause of exercise related osteoarthritis: an epidemiological update. Br J Sports Med 38:526–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hurley MV (1999) The role of muscle weakness in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 25:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM et al (2005) Three-dimensional mechanics, kinematics, and morphology of the knee viewed in vertual reality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(2):71–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Archibeck MJ, White RE Jr (2002) What’s new in adult reconstructive knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1719–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 96–B:1052–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goradia V (2003) The knee. Meniscus and cartilage problems, arthoscopy and sprots medicine, 1–6. www.goOrtho.net
  9. 9.
    Shrivastava S, Prakash R (2009) Assessment of bone condition by acoustic emission technique: a review. J Biomed Sci Eng 2:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rybak DI, Rosenthal DI (2001) Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. Q J Nucl Med 45:53–64Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter DJ, Guermazi A (2012) Imaging technique in osteoarthritis. J Am Acad Phys Med Rehabil 4:S68–S74Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guccione AA, Felson DT, Anderson JJ (1994) The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framinham study. Am J Publ Health 84:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bechhoefer E, Yongzhi Q, Zhu J, David H (2013) Signal processing techniques to improve an acoustic emissions sensor. In: Proceedings of annual conference of prognostics and Health Management Society, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carpintei A, Lacidogna G, Accornero F et al (2013) Influence of damage in the acoustic emission parameters. J Cem Conc Composit 44:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eyre DR (2004) Collagens and cartilage matrix homeostasis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 427(sup):S118–S122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franke RP, Dorner P, Schwalbe HJ, Ziegler B (2004) Acoustic emission measurement system for the orthopedic diagnostics of the human femur. J Acoust Emiss 22:236–242Google Scholar

Copyright information

© OpenInterface Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Technology Fusion, Graduate School of Science and EngineeringSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations