Differences between revisions 5 and 6
Revision 5 as of 2014-06-25 14:59:52
Size: 1741
Editor: aerdemir
Comment:
Revision 6 as of 2014-06-26 20:34:58
Size: 8106
Editor: snehalkc
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 55: Line 55:
  * TBD   * Ahmet emailed Martin from BioMomentum regarding the video data collection. The anticipation was the new software version would have control over video collection. Specific features Ahmet asked about were 1. automatic down-sampling that saves every “nth” data point (displacement, force, etc.) and the 2. signal filtering. Signal filtering would help smooth data and has implications for finding initial contact, which is problematic if noisy data is used to specify a threshold to establish contact. There are workarounds for this issue but it would be convenient if there is an established way to handle this.
  * Ahmet also updated the imaging specifications protocol. Tables were added that reflect the image settings for the chosen protocols. The imaging page is essentially complete and is ready for review.
  * The experimentation workflow figure was not updated but will be for next week (Ahmet's task).
  * Tara reviewed the tissue preparation specifications. She added comments and will continue to review. Tara should also review the tissue testing specifications. Snehal covered her approach to developing the tissue testing specifications. She is actively prototyping (e.g. testing the protocols) and will populate with more detail as she develops the routine.
  * Robb will tell Snehal where the camera is for tissue thickness measurements
  * Robb and Jason have been working out the approach to handle processing robot data with regards to registration and landmark points (spheres, epicondylar axes, etc.).
  * Robb, Ahmet, and Jason will determine an appropriate material for calibration of the Tekscan pressure measurement sensor. This will likely be based on a foam material that mimics cartilage behavior, ideally in stiffness and nonlinear behavior, though this will be determined.
  * Snehal developed a Python script to read the tissue testing data. Related test files were uploaded to the utility folder.
  * Down-sampling of the imaging data is still being worked on by Snehal.
  * The tissue testing robot was moved into the lab. Setup is progressing and Snehal made a list of items for immediate order. The largest item is another manual adjustment stage to add another degree of freedom (in addition to the one currently being used).

Line 57: Line 68:
  * TBD   * At the bottom of the tissue testing page, Snehal summarized her progress/results. Like the imaging specifications, this will serve as the preliminary outline for the final specifications. Once the details are worked out in the trials, the final protocols can be developed. Another knee was dissected last week and a handful of tissue testing samples were created. Meniscus compression samples were created though the testing turned out to be relatively “tricky.” Snehal suspects the J2C data may have had related issues. Snehal summarized here experience, where she described the approach to punching out meniscus samples and the related issues. Essentially, it is difficult to obtain a uniform sample size given the complexity of the native meniscus geometry. It seems to always turn out as a “wedge” shape and there is little material to actually work with. Related, if a wedge is obtained, shaving it down may result in a very thin sample (1 mm or less). If the material is also “soft”, then testing such a thin sample is also problematic (e.g. establishing contact and known strain values is difficult). The group discussed potential solutions, including indentation testing on a meniscus cross section (force-displacement indentation data) followed by testing a sample to obtain stress-strain material response. This would provide material data for a model of the meniscus cross section, that can then be compared with corresponding force-displacement FEA results.
  * The heater for the tissue bath was also discussed. Once the heating element is put in the bath, there is no room to subsequently put the tissue sample in. Snehal is concerned about the time the sample might sit, if it is put in before the temperature is controlled, as well as potential overshoot of the temperature as the bath is heated. The question was raised as to whether the temperature bath is needed. This would need to be tested. Essentially, the primary concern is consistency of the testing conditions, which a heated bath provides. One solution might be to preheat the saline outside of the testing bath and then pour it into the temperature controlled testing chamber once the testing starts. This would required less work by the installed heater as well as less time to stabilize the sample.
  * Snehal made a list of all testing samples, which includes a total of 29 tests. 8 specific tests were identified as trials to help develop the protocols for all tests. Snehal presented the list and the group agreed the sample tests appeared to be adequate. Snehal performed an initial cartilage cylindrical compression sample. Notes about this test were uploaded to the bottom of the ExperimentationTissueMechanics page. The protocols were updated to reflect what Snehal learned during this test. The data looks “good”, which means no spikes were observed and the protocol appeared to do what was desired. There was “overshoot” and the loading rate was specified at 100%/second, which is relatively aggressive. Snehal's plan is to complete the 8 tests to inform the final tissue testing protocols. Snehal will find the group if she needs help.

Line 59: Line 74:
  * TBD   * See details in item 1 above.
Line 61: Line 77:
  * TBD   * Immediate action items were assigned and agreed upon by the group.
Line 63: Line 80:
  * TBD   * Robb, Craig, and Ahmet discussed the possibility to use the Kuka robot at Lutheran for the joint testing. This is as an alternative to the Mikrolar that won't have new brakes in the near future. That stated, it is possible to test in the current state, where the brakes may or may not perform adequately. Ahmet proposed that during the last week of July a test run is performed on the Mikrolar to gain confidence in the setup, which will include imaging and joint testing. The data would also provide a basis for ACL/PCL modeling. We have a specimen intact at the joint level. It doesn't have a hip but has a foot still attached.
  * Katie covered her process for creating parametric surfaces in Rhino. This is document on her project page (cruciate_model on simTk). This progress will serve as a basis for the details of model creation in Open Knees.

Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: June 25, 2014

Time: 10:30 AM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

  1. Ahmet Erdemir
  2. Jason Halloran
  3. Craig Bennetss
  4. Snehal Chokhandre
  5. Katie Stemmer
  6. Robb Colbrunn
  7. Tara Bonner

Agenda:

  1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
  2. Discuss tissue testing progress.
  3. Discuss joint testing preparation progress.
  4. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
  5. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

  • Ahmet
    • Update experimentation workflow figure.
    • Review tissue testing specifications.
    • Review tissue sampling section of specimen preparation specifications.
  • Craig
    • Review specimen preparation specifications.
  • Robb
    • Provide camera positioning system for thickness measurements.
  • Tara
    • Review tissue testing specifications.
  • Robb and Jason
    • Troubleshoot processing tools to move between "right knee abstraction" and "physical representation" of knee data collected during joint testing.
  • Jason and Ahmet
    • Find appropriate foam material to conduct pressure calibration.
  • Snehal
    • Complete writing a Python script to downsample number of video images collected during tissue testing.
    • Continue executing tissue testing procedures to finalize tissue testing specifications.

Notes:

  1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
    • Ahmet emailed Martin from BioMomentum regarding the video data collection. The anticipation was the new software version would have control over video collection. Specific features Ahmet asked about were 1. automatic down-sampling that saves every “nth” data point (displacement, force, etc.) and the 2. signal filtering. Signal filtering would help smooth data and has implications for finding initial contact, which is problematic if noisy data is used to specify a threshold to establish contact. There are workarounds for this issue but it would be convenient if there is an established way to handle this.

    • Ahmet also updated the imaging specifications protocol. Tables were added that reflect the image settings for the chosen protocols. The imaging page is essentially complete and is ready for review.
    • The experimentation workflow figure was not updated but will be for next week (Ahmet's task).
    • Tara reviewed the tissue preparation specifications. She added comments and will continue to review. Tara should also review the tissue testing specifications. Snehal covered her approach to developing the tissue testing specifications. She is actively prototyping (e.g. testing the protocols) and will populate with more detail as she develops the routine.
    • Robb will tell Snehal where the camera is for tissue thickness measurements
    • Robb and Jason have been working out the approach to handle processing robot data with regards to registration and landmark points (spheres, epicondylar axes, etc.).
    • Robb, Ahmet, and Jason will determine an appropriate material for calibration of the Tekscan pressure measurement sensor. This will likely be based on a foam material that mimics cartilage behavior, ideally in stiffness and nonlinear behavior, though this will be determined.
    • Snehal developed a Python script to read the tissue testing data. Related test files were uploaded to the utility folder.
    • Down-sampling of the imaging data is still being worked on by Snehal.
    • The tissue testing robot was moved into the lab. Setup is progressing and Snehal made a list of items for immediate order. The largest item is another manual adjustment stage to add another degree of freedom (in addition to the one currently being used).
  2. Discuss tissue testing progress.
    • At the bottom of the tissue testing page, Snehal summarized her progress/results. Like the imaging specifications, this will serve as the preliminary outline for the final specifications. Once the details are worked out in the trials, the final protocols can be developed. Another knee was dissected last week and a handful of tissue testing samples were created. Meniscus compression samples were created though the testing turned out to be relatively “tricky.” Snehal suspects the J2C data may have had related issues. Snehal summarized here experience, where she described the approach to punching out meniscus samples and the related issues. Essentially, it is difficult to obtain a uniform sample size given the complexity of the native meniscus geometry. It seems to always turn out as a “wedge” shape and there is little material to actually work with. Related, if a wedge is obtained, shaving it down may result in a very thin sample (1 mm or less). If the material is also “soft”, then testing such a thin sample is also problematic (e.g. establishing contact and known strain values is difficult). The group discussed potential solutions, including indentation testing on a meniscus cross section (force-displacement indentation data) followed by testing a sample to obtain stress-strain material response. This would provide material data for a model of the meniscus cross section, that can then be compared with corresponding force-displacement FEA results.
    • The heater for the tissue bath was also discussed. Once the heating element is put in the bath, there is no room to subsequently put the tissue sample in. Snehal is concerned about the time the sample might sit, if it is put in before the temperature is controlled, as well as potential overshoot of the temperature as the bath is heated. The question was raised as to whether the temperature bath is needed. This would need to be tested. Essentially, the primary concern is consistency of the testing conditions, which a heated bath provides. One solution might be to preheat the saline outside of the testing bath and then pour it into the temperature controlled testing chamber once the testing starts. This would required less work by the installed heater as well as less time to stabilize the sample.
    • Snehal made a list of all testing samples, which includes a total of 29 tests. 8 specific tests were identified as trials to help develop the protocols for all tests. Snehal presented the list and the group agreed the sample tests appeared to be adequate. Snehal performed an initial cartilage cylindrical compression sample. Notes about this test were uploaded to the bottom of the ExperimentationTissueMechanics page. The protocols were updated to reflect what Snehal learned during this test. The data looks “good”, which means no spikes were observed and the protocol appeared to do what was desired. There was “overshoot” and the loading rate was specified at 100%/second, which is relatively aggressive. Snehal's plan is to complete the 8 tests to inform the final tissue testing protocols. Snehal will find the group if she needs help.

  3. Discuss joint testing preparation progress.
    • See details in item 1 above.
  4. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
    • Immediate action items were assigned and agreed upon by the group.
  5. Other.
    • Robb, Craig, and Ahmet discussed the possibility to use the Kuka robot at Lutheran for the joint testing. This is as an alternative to the Mikrolar that won't have new brakes in the near future. That stated, it is possible to test in the current state, where the brakes may or may not perform adequately. Ahmet proposed that during the last week of July a test run is performed on the Mikrolar to gain confidence in the setup, which will include imaging and joint testing. The data would also provide a basis for ACL/PCL modeling. We have a specimen intact at the joint level. It doesn't have a hip but has a foot still attached.
    • Katie covered her process for creating parametric surfaces in Rhino. This is document on her project page (cruciate_model on simTk). This progress will serve as a basis for the details of model creation in Open Knees.

RecurringMeetings/2014-06-25 (last edited 2016-05-04 22:09:50 by localhost)