Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: January 26, 2016

Time: 10:30 AM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

  1. Ahmet Erdemir
  2. Craig Bennetts
  3. Snehal Chokhandre
  4. Robb Colbrunn
  5. Tara Bonner
  6. Jason Halloran (Cleveland State University)
  7. Will Zaylor (Cleveland State University)

Agenda:

  1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
  2. Continue evaluation of drafts for data manuscripts.
  3. Discuss tissue mechanical testing protocol evaluation.
  4. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
  5. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

Ongoing Action Items:

/!\ DEADLINE FOR SECOND DRAFT DATA PAPERS IS APRIL 1, 2016 /!\

Notes:

  1. Discuss immediate action items from the last meeting.
    • TBD
  2. Continue evaluation of drafts for data manuscripts.
    • Tara went over various sections of the patellofemoral joint testing manuscript.
    • For the tibiofemoral joint manuscript, the group had discussions on technical validation:
      • Tara noted that she calculated RMS error between desired and actual loads for the laxity tests. Off-axis RMS errors, if close to zero, will indicate that the tests are indeed laxity tests. The group discussed how to present this. One option is to have a table for each specimen - each laxity testing condition - each flexion angle, where a row of maximum errors are reported for forces and moments.
    • Kinematics response of specimens during passive flexion may serve for technical validation. This can be done by having a plot of each degree of freedom as a function of flexion angle, where responses of all specimens are plotted in the same figure.
    • Tara also provided the range of anterior-posterior movement during repeated anterior-posterior laxity tests conducted at 30 degrees flexion. Ahmet noted that while such a presentation provides a quick and accessible summary of the repeatability, it may be deceiving. First, the RMS errors between actual loading profiles of repeated tests should be calculated and provided. This will ensure that the robot applied the same loads and therefore one can expect the same movements. Second, after the first condition is met, the RMS errors between kinematics of repeated tests should be calculated and provided. This will confirm that the knee is not damaged and moves in a similar way under similar loading. Ahmet noted that Omar Gad wrote scripts to for the compare kinematics and kinetics of repeated trials - available in the source code repository under utl/SimVitro folder. Tara will work with Ahmet in this regard.
    • Tara also asked about using registration marker data for technical validation. First, fits to the measurements during joint mechanics testing should result in marker dimensions, e.g. a technical validation done similarly as in the anatomical imaging manuscript. Second, the distances between centers of the markers of a same bone should be similar in the MRI and as measured during joint mechanics testing. This comparison tests if the markers or bone moved/deformed between testing sessions.
  3. Discuss tissue mechanical testing protocol evaluation.
    • TBD
  4. Decide immediate action items for the next meeting.
    • See Immediate Action Items above.
  5. Other.

    • Will developed a Python suite, tdmsParser, to work with TDMS and configuration files generated by SimVitro. He is using Sphinx for automated documentation. Ahmet noted that Omar Gad and Connor Lough wrote some code for similar reasons. It may be a good idea to incorporate these into Will's code. Will will create a tdmsParser folder in utl/SimVitro folder of the source code repository to put his scripts.

    • Will demonstrated visualization of ligament length changes with rhombodial insertions to define cruciate ligament fibers. He has been using oks001 data for this purpose.