Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: January 28, 2014

Time: 10:30 AM EST

Means: In person meeting


  1. Ahmet Erdemir
  2. Jason Halloran
  3. Craig Bennetts
  4. Robb Colbrunn
  5. Tara Bonner
  6. Dylan Beckler


  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:


  1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
    • Tara will provide a link to the study (a WCB 2014 abstract submission) justifying the choice to test the specimens in an intact or cleaned (dissected) state. The team decided to test the knees in an “intact” state.
    • Tara and Jason started editing the sample preparation page. Conflicts will be resolved and additional questions and edits will be added. Immediate action items were added for Jason and Tara to finish editing this page.
    • Robb discussed the infrastructure information for experimentation mechanics. Specifications of testing machine from Biomomentum, Inc. were added along with brief descriptions of the sample grips. Specifications for the “Sample Thickness Measurement System” will be added and clarified before May. Note that determination of some of these specifications will require a testing session. The tissue testing capabilities/specifications will also be clarified along with potential solutions for the current testing needs. This will likely be accomplished by Dylan. Robb and Tara should check this page frequently to maintain progress. An aside note from Ahmet, Biomomentum, Inc. received the purchase order and they have already started building the tissue testing machine. It should be ready in approximately 8 weeks before the end of March.
    • Craig updated the imaging specifications along with the related infrastructure page. Regarding the specifications, contact info for the imaging technician needs to be added, pictures of the transport container need to be provided, and the final specifications need to be determined. OAI style reporting fields will be used to describe the imaging specifications for completeness and consistency. Transfer of data (MRIs) from the imaging facility also needs to be decided upon (likely a hard drive or a thumb drive) and described in the specifications page. After the test session tomorrow, the new images should be reviewed before the meeting next week (by Craig and Jason).
    • The imaging test session was scheduled. The team will also include the candidate materials for the mounting plugs (for the optotrak and the registration phantoms) in the test session.
    • Jason has not finished editing the joint testing specifications page, this will be added to next week's immediate action items.
    • The group started but hasn't finished editing the specimen preparation page.
    • Pressure measurement equilibration and calibration was discussed. Prices and specifications were acquired from Tekscan, Inc.. Robb and Jason had a discussion with one of the engineers at Tekscan, Inc. Potential solutions for equilibration and calibration were discussed. The team may be able to use the current foot testing apparatus. As a first test, equilibration with the foot sensor calibration bladder (max psi is around 87) will be tried. Then calibration will be attempted using a foam with known stiffness (that mimics cartilage stiffness at expected testing loads). After calibration, multiple locations on the sensor will be tested for consistency (approximate pressures of 100 psi up to 500 or 600 psi). This loading range should be accomplished with a force value, as in the calibration). Robb and Jason will design a mini experiment to test the approach to equilibration/calibration. Robb and Jason will also evaluate the current infrastructure and obtain final pricing for desired software/hardware needs from Tekscan, Inc.
    • Previous meeting notes were discussed.
      • A purchase order for young specimens was obtained by Tara.
      • A new intern, to will help out with aggregation of promotion material and phantom design may start depending on the funding arrangement with the Department of Orthopaedics.
      • Ahmet provided an update on last week's meeting with the University of Utah group. The Utah team are working on the in situ strain problem and have made great headway on defining element, node and surface sets.
  2. Discuss progress of all other tasks.
    • Craig developed an initial framework for “membrane” meshing of ligaments. Essentially, from MR images, a set of curves can be defined for each ligament. The curves define a four sided parametric surface for the ligament. Springs will be embedded along the collagen direction and the stiffness and “offset” (slack length) can be controlled for these springs.
    • Ahmet will try to work on the Open Knee - Generation 1 manuscript.
    • Dylan presented a mini study on the accuracy of Optotrak motion analysis system when using multiple cameras and when utilizing a probe. It appears that a larger probe, with multiple marker sets (four total, with three IREDs on each), provides more accuracy. The “incline” of the probe in the field of view of the cameras also affected the accuracy. Error values were the best yet and a rigid probe with four marker sets is being designed for future tests.
    • Knee testing dates were discussed. The weeks of Feb 24 and March 3 are the current candidates. The current bottlenecks are related to readiness of pressure measurement system, imaging specifications, and specimen preparation document.
  3. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
    • Ahmet summarized the Immediate Action Items (see above). The team agreed that the tasks were appropriate.
  4. Other.
    • No other topics were discussed.

RecurringMeetings/2014-01-28 (last edited 2016-05-04 22:09:48 by localhost)