Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: January 21, 2014

Time: 10:30 AM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

1. Ahmet Erdemir
2. Jason Halloran
3. Robb Colbrunn
4. Tara Bonner

Agenda:

1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
2. Discuss progress of all other tasks.
3. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
4. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

• Tara
  • Specimen preparation page needs to have a description or a link on why the knees will be tested as intact.
  • Start addressing Ahmet's comments on tissue sample preparations.
• Robb
  • Update infrastructure page on tissue testing including the testing device and necessary accessories (remains from previous meeting notes).
• Craig
  • Reflect discussions on stepwise procedures in the imaging specifications page.
  • Move imaging facility related information to infrastructure pages.
• Jason
  • Edit joint testing specifications test.
  • Schedule imaging test session.
• Craig and Jason
  • Test transportation device fitting.
• All
  • Read specimen preparation and registration pages and provide comments for Tara to respond.
  • Alternatives of pressure measurement systems as Tekscan Inc. is not responsive.
  • Elaborate on the need of pressure measurement to potentially replace it with kinematics based contact distribution estimation (or to remove).

Notes:

1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
   • Jason discussed email with Tekscan, they are currently unresponsive and this issue needs to be resolved. Alternatives for pressure measurements will be explored, including foregoing pressure measurements all together. Another email will be sent and/or a call will be made to Tekscan in an attempt to resolve this issue. Everyone will explore alternatives to pressure measurement, whether that is another approach to physically measure pressure or measuring kinematics alone. Ahmet discussed measuring patellofemoral kinematics using a spatial linkage. If we can minimize registration and kinematics measurement errors we can predict pressure using simulation alone. Another alternative, Ahmet mentioned talking with Barry Kuban (director of the Electronics Core at the Cleveland Clinic) about resistive pressure measurements and the possibility to build a system.
     • Sensorprod may also be explored, though the physical range of the sensor appears to be quite low. A custom solution may be possible. They will be contacted if necessary.
   • Jason also covered planning on the imaging test sessions with UH imaging center. A test session will be setup for next week and the image coordinate alignment issues will be discussed with Chris Flask.
     • Transport device needs to be tested before the imaging session. An immediate action item was made to accomplish this.
     • Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoon and Thursday morning are open or Ahmet. Craig has class on Tuesday and Thursday mornings (until 10:30 or so).
   • Tara's update – another specimen was acquired, specifically the elderly, healthy, female. A request form was sent to acquire the young specimens, male or female.
   • Tara updated the specimen preparation page to reflect the decision that the specimens will be tested in an intact state.
     • Tara/Robb will prepare a WCB abstract that helps to justify why the specimens will be tested in an intact state. This document will uploaded to the wiki.
     • Ahmet added a number of notes/questions for Tara to address regarding tissue sample preparation. To clarify this section, Tara will update some of these descriptions with pictures from previous testing.
   • The update to the infrastructure page on tissue testing device will remain an immediate action item for Robb.

   • Regarding the BioMomentum order, Ahmet stated that Izzy is following on the internal ordering process. Due to the cost, the order needs multiple levels of approval. Ahmet will continue to facilitate this process.

   • Imaging specifications were discussed. Craig updated the targeted outcomes on this page and added organization to the current protocol section. An aside, the “Infrastructure/ExperimentationImaging” page also needs to be updated. The specifications for the protocol will be changed to a sequential “recipe” in order to accomplish imaging as if it was the day of testing. The notes/discussion will contain the details to justify the adoption of specific imaging protocols. Details around the approach to data transfer from the imaging facility will be added as well as what physically happens to the specimen immediately after imaging. The specimen orientation in the MRI was discussed and for convenience it will be oriented to follow clinically relevant planes (superior is up, medial to the midline, etc.).
     • For imaging specifications, a link to the OAI study should be added as these protocols provide the basis for the sequences that are being tested.
   • Ahmet added a header to the experimentation wiki pages that instruct the general community on how to review/contribute to these specifications. A /Discussion page was added, a forum entry was created and an email contact was added. The “Documents” link was added to specific pages to facilitate public feedback on these issues.
   • The multimedia/marketing leadership team (Ahmet, Jason, Robb) met last week to discuss generation of content for visibility of this project (as well as the groups). A part time student from Case will likely take on some of the associated tasks, including preparation of a database/repository of multimedia content.
   • Ahmet and Jason prepared the FEBio feature request for element sets, node sets, and surface definitions. Input and output capabilities for each set were included and summarized on the appropriate page. A figure was created by Jason to reflect the desired features and will be discussed with the Utah group in the upcoming conference call.
   • Tara/Robb will prepare a WCB abstract to be reviewed/discussed by additional authors using previous testing results that have both “intact” and “cleaned” conditions. The abstract will likely include only one specimen, the one that most closely matched in terms of kinetics (using an error metric) between the two states. All three available specimens will be analyzed to verify this is the case.
   • Previous meeting notes were discussed
     • It appears the relevant items were discussed and/or addressed though the specimen preparation page, though this should be reviewed by all team members. Notes/questions will be added to clarify desired areas.

     • Registration issues for the Optotrak system were briefly discussed. The new engineer in the BioRobotics group is currently troubleshooting the source(s) of error. The group will be updated as progress warrants.

     • Craig summarized last week's conference call with the Stanford group. Stanford has created a mock-up of the interface that was previously specified by the Cleveland team. A protocol for communication was outlined for the workflow related to job submission, running and completion (how to inform/communicate with the user). The contact at Stanford is applying to XSEDE for resource allocation and to develop the gateway for this project.
2. Discuss progress of all other tasks.
   • Robotics testing specifications was marked at 95% complete.
   • The “tissue testing specifications” needs to be filled in. Given the time, Tara will start adding the related information.
   • Imaging specifications are now 80% complete and will be clarified and summarized after the upcoming test session.
   • The gen 1 Open Knee manuscript is being prepared
   • Imaging infrastructure will be populated.
3. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
   • Ahmet summarized the immediate action items (see above). The team agreed the tasks were appropriate.
4. Other.
   • No other issues were discussed.