Kurt Manal

This paper provides an overview of forward dynamic neuromusculoskeletal modeling. The aim of such models is to estimate or predict muscle forces, joint moments, and/or joint kinematics from neural signals. This is a four-step process. In the first step, muscle activation dynamics govern the transformation from the neural signal to a measure of muscle activation-a time varying parameter between 0 and 1. In the second step, muscle contraction dynamics characterize how muscle activations are transformed into muscle forces. The third step requires a model of the musculoskeletal geometry to transform muscle forces to joint moments. Finally, the equations of motion allow joint moments to be transformed into joint movements. Each step involves complex nonlinear relationships. The focus of this paper is on the details involved in the first two steps, since these are the most challenging to the biomechanician. The global process is then explained through applications to the study of predicting isometric elbow moments and dynamic knee kinetics.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional experimental laboratory study. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationships between hip strength and hip kinematics, and between arch structure and knee kinematics during prolonged treadmill running in runners with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). BACKGROUND: Hip weakness can lead to excessive femoral motions that adversely affect patellofemoral joint mechanics. Similarly, foot mechanics, which are influenced by foot structure, are also known to influence patellofemoral joint mechanics. Thus, proximal and distal factors should be considered when studying individuals with PFPS. METHODS AND MEASURES: Twenty recreational runners with PFPS (5 male, 15 female) and 20 matched uninjured runners participated in the study. Hip abduction and hip external rotation isometric strength measurements were collected before and after a prolonged run, while the arch height index was recorded on all runners before the run. Lower extremity kinematic data were collected at the beginning and end of the run. Two-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used for analysis. RESULTS: Both groups displayed decreases in hip abductor and external rotator strengths at the end of the run. The PFPS group displayed significantly lower hip abduction strength [(kg x cm)/body mass] compared to controls (PFPS group: begin 15.3, end 13.5; uninjured group: begin 17.3, end 15.4). At the end of the run, the level of association between hip abduction strength and the peak hip adduction angle for the PFPS group was statistically significant, indicating a strong relationship (r = -0.74). No other associations with hip strength were observed in either group. Arch height did not differ between groups and no significant association was observed between arch height and peak knee adduction angle during running. CONCLUSIONS: Runners with PFPS displayed weaker hip abductor muscles that were associated with an increase in hip adduction during running. This relationship became more pronounced at the end of the run. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 5.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury predisposes individuals to early-onset knee joint osteoarthritis (OA). Abnormal joint loading is apparent after ACL injury and reconstruction. The relationship between altered joint biomechanics and the development of knee OA is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Altered knee joint kinetics and medial compartment contact forces initially after injury and reconstruction are associated with radiographic knee OA 5 years after reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Individuals with acute, unilateral ACL injury completed gait analysis before (baseline) and after (posttraining) preoperative rehabilitation and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after reconstruction. Surface electromyographic and knee biomechanical data served as inputs to an electromyographically driven musculoskeletal model to estimate knee joint contact forces. Patients completed radiographic testing 5 years after reconstruction. Differences in knee joint kinetics and contact forces were compared between patients with and those without radiographic knee OA. RESULTS: Patients with OA walked with greater frontal plane interlimb differences than those without OA (nonOA) at baseline (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.00 ± 0.08 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.15 ± 0.09 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .014; peak knee adduction moment impulse difference: -0.001 ± 0.032 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.048 ± 0.031 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .042). The involved limb knee adduction moment impulse of the group with osteoarthritis was also lower than that of the group without osteoarthritis at baseline (0.087 ± 0.023 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs 0.049 ± 0.018 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .023). Significant group differences were absent at posttraining but reemerged 6 months after reconstruction (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.02 ± 0.04 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.06 ± 0.11 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .043). In addition, the OA group walked with lower peak medial compartment contact forces of the involved limb than did the group without OA at 6 months (2.89 ± 0.52 body weight [nonOA] vs 2.10 ± 0.69 body weight [OA], P = .036). CONCLUSION: Patients who had radiographic knee OA 5 years after ACL reconstruction walked with lower knee adduction moments and medial compartment joint contact forces than did those patients without OA early after injury and reconstruction.