Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: May 13, 2014

Time: 10:30 AM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

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

Agenda:

1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
2. Review of specimen preparation specifications.
3. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
4. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

• Jason
  • Provide information on patella marker assembly in a relevant infrastructure page.
• Snehal
  • Update specimen preparation specifications to reflect preparations for tissue testing.
  • Update tissue testing protocols in the relevant specifications wiki page.
• Craig
  • Provide post-processing as part of the test problem.
• Craig and Snehal
  • Provide quantitative comparisons of tissue thickness measurements (probe based vs image based).
• Robb and Jason
  • Meet for pressure calibration specifications.
• All
  • Review specimen preparation specifications wiki page.

Notes:

1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
   • Ahmet and Jason discussed registration of the patella marker assembly coordinate system. The registration page was updated and the infrastructure page, with the patella marker assembly, needs to be updated. Jason will provide the patella marker registration information in the infrastructure page.
   • Ahmet, Craig, and Jason will meet tomorrow to start detailing the modeling specifications. These meetings will be bi-weekly. The related specifications will be populated as the ideas are developed.

   • Snehal provided updates on tissue testing related activities by e-mail. The taller bath is being made; a press was ordered (along with blades); and Martin from BioMomentum Inc. was contacted in regard to load cell calibration for a lower range.

   • Quantification of image-based versus probe-based tissue thickness measurements is still needed. Craig will help with this mini-study. Robb noted that his interns are already coding the interface with the probe measurement device and this can used to test the implementation the new framework. This activity will likely be setup during the next week.
   • The knee acquired for Elvis' study was dissected in preparation for tissue testing. The tissue testing for this knee will happen later this week, most likely on upcoming Friday. The testing room is scheduled for another group during Wednesday and Thursday. Testing of the knee using Elvis' plan should require about 8 days to complete assuming 10 hours of testing each day. While the tests may be conducted along with other testing in the same room, the worry is potential "bumping" of the bench and/or general access to equipment for preparation of the tissue samples (in case others are using the preparation table). These tests will inform Open Knee(s) tissue testing specifications while also providing data for Elvis' specific study.
   • Elvis created a specific project site and will upload his protocols for indentation testing of tissues. In addition to his own results, Ahmet thought Elvis may also be interested in using Open Knee(s) tissue testing data in his studies. The timing for the associated data was discussed. The first Open Knee(s) data should be available later this summer/early fall. One issue that needs to be addressed with this is the agreement in material properties between indentation and confined/unconfined tests in case data from different studies will be pooled. This may be a study in and of itself and there is some literature about it.
   • In the specifications page on joint testing, Tara uploaded a tutorial on the steps to perform the robot setup to start testing. Ahmet may move this document to the relevant infrastructure page.
   • Craig summarized his meeting with Ahmet about incorporating post-processing into the cloud computing infrastructure. Craig already simplified a script originally written by Akhil Reddy (a summer student) for the cloud computing prototype. The model and scripts will be updated to incorporate a simple post-processing problem. Essentially, this will be a test problem for Stanford to implement in their existing cloud computing workflow.
   • Activities related to pressure sensor calibration for joint testing remain pending.
2. Review of specimen preparation specifications.
   • Tara and Ahmet discussed specimen preparation and how it is reflected in the specifications page. The information for joint level preparations is there but it could be cleaned up. Ahmet went over the whole workflow and the group discussed the overall approach, including the targeted outcomes, to ensure the team has a full understanding of the preparation steps. Specific details describing the use of bone cement to secure Optotrak base plugs to the bone need to be included. In addition, the redundancies in the system should be noted, e.g. kinematics is measured both by Optotrak and by the robotic testing system. Description of tissue specimen/sample preparation needs to be detailed based on the group's recent experience.
3. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
   • Immediate action items were discussed and agreed upon.
4. Other.
   • Meeting notes from last week were scanned through. There was a discussion about the specified relaxation duration for tissue testing. Based on previous testing (of meniscus and cartilage), Elvis said that 30 minutes should be adequate, even for application of higher strains. A stress relaxation criteria (based on force readings) could be adopted as well but 30 minutes is a common time reported in the literature.