• RecurringMeetings
• 2016-12-06

Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: December 6, 2016

Time: 2:00 PM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

1. Ahmet Erdemir
2. Tammy Owings
3. Benjamin Landis
4. Tyler Schimmoeller
5. Rici Morrill
6. Robb Colbrunn
7. Tara Bonner

Agenda:

1. Discuss immediate action items from past meetings.

   • http://wiki.simtk.org/multis/RecurringMeetings/2016-11-15

2. In vivo testing progress.
3. Readiness for in vitro testing.
4. Data analysis update.

5. Modeling & simulation specifications.

6. Decide immediate action items for next meeting.
7. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

• Tammy
  • Continue recruiting and testing for in vivo experimentation.
• Rici
  • Continue analyzing data of in vivo experimentation.
  • Investigate element-specific property definition for modeling.
• Tyler
  • Continue associating data from in vivo experimentation.
  • Develop a method to stabilize cadaver legs during MRI, CT, and ultrasound imaging.
  • Configure computers in the in vitro testing room to analyze in vivo and in vitro data.
  • Update the in vitro specifications on the wiki to detail experiment timeline and imaging specifications.
• Robb

  • Order an additional IMU (VectorNav).

  • Continue developing Optotrak software integration.
• Tara
  • Modify the LINUS software to handle in vitro subjects separate from in vivo subjects.
• Ben
  • Continue developing modeling specifications.
  • Continue exploring the use of in situ strain plugin in FEBio.
• All
  • Make decisions to freeze MRI specifications.

Notes:

1. Discuss immediate action items from past meetings.
   • All action items were related to the recurring agenda items; refer to discussions below.
2. In vivo testing progress.
   • Tammy completed more in vivo experimentation trials.
   • Tammy and Rici met with radiologists. They suggested previewing the ultrasound in the transverse direction first to locate the bone. Rici also updated data analysis specifications to reflect input from radiologists. Rici summarized these discussions in the wiki.
   • Tammy analyzed unmatched trials for in vivo experimentation and discovered 49/50 of the unmatched trials were from the 14L5 probe. Tyler has adjusted the pulse to test the theory that the sampling rate of the 14L5 probe is less than the 9L4. If resolved, this would help remove manual intervention to associate data files.
3. Readiness for in vitro testing.
   • An MRI and a CT scan was recently completed on a cadaver leg:
     • The MRI specifications were updated on the imaging wiki page. The group discussed whether the current specifications would provide adequate data for analyze. Currently the favored specification is: 5-6 scans per section, 25 slices per scan, 2 mm slice, 1 mm gap. The acquisition times should be considered to ensure data from two sections (whole leg or arm) can be collected under 2 hours.
     • Ben recommended using the CT for segmentation. The tissue boundaries are more defined and homogeneous, making segmentation easier to automate. Ahmet mentioned that if logistics allows, CT can be added to the protocol.
   • Tyler is interested in building another housing for in vitro testing. The group agreed that this would be a good idea. Another force transducer and an IMU will be needed to prevent disassembly/assembly of original housing for in vitro testing.
   • Robb continued development of Optotrak integration to LINUS. He installed a separate version of Labview on the laptop in order not to interfere with the existing software used for in vivo data collection.
   • The group discussed building support stands to rest the foot (hand) and hip (shoulder) during cadaver specimen imaging. This may provide a more natural alignment of the specimen to imitate in vivo testing condition; also see discussion in the data analysis update below.
4. Data analysis update.
   • Rici updated data analysis notes on the wiki for each subject.
   • Rici analyzed and compared tissue thickness in MRI and Ultrasound. She noted the differences in upper leg shape due to the way it was placed on the platform. Tyler noted the importance of placing the specimen on the table in a vertical motion, rather than being placed then pushed/rolled in to its final location to prevent shear deformation during imaging.

5. Modeling & simulation specifications.

   • Ben segmented the leg from hip to knee. He discussed current obstacles for segmenting the muscle and fat layers when they are mixed together.
   • Ben was also able to build a full model of skin, muscle, fat layers. The number of elements to model skin will likely prohibit simulations due to large degrees of freedom. Ahmet and Ben discussed several strategies to manage this issue, i.e. modeling skin as membrane, or using hexahedral or prism elements rather than tetrahedral elements. Another possibility is to provide element-specific averaged material properties (to accommodate within element heterogeneity) and only explicitly model the outer tissue and bone boundaries.
6. Decide immediate action items for next meeting.
   • See Immediate Action Items above.
7. Other.
   • Ahmet advised team members to pay attention to conference deadlines. He is hoping that components of in vivo and in vitro testing, and modeling strategies will result in scientific abstracts to present. He also mentioned potential manuscripts that may emerge from these.