Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.26 SNIP: 0.375 CiteScore™: 1.4

ISSN Imprimir: 0278-940X
ISSN En Línea: 1943-619X

Volumes:
Volumen 48, 2020 Volumen 47, 2019 Volumen 46, 2018 Volumen 45, 2017 Volumen 44, 2016 Volumen 43, 2015 Volumen 42, 2014 Volumen 41, 2013 Volumen 40, 2012 Volumen 39, 2011 Volumen 38, 2010 Volumen 37, 2009 Volumen 36, 2008 Volumen 35, 2007 Volumen 34, 2006 Volumen 33, 2005 Volumen 32, 2004 Volumen 31, 2003 Volumen 30, 2002 Volumen 29, 2001 Volumen 28, 2000 Volumen 27, 1999 Volumen 26, 1998 Volumen 25, 1997 Volumen 24, 1996 Volumen 23, 1995

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.2014010061
pages 223-242

Vibration Arthrometry: A Critical Review

Steven C Abbott
Faculty of Science & Technology, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK
Michael D Cole
Faculty of Science & Technology, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK

SINOPSIS

The clinical value of sounds and vibrations produced by biological joints in motion has been studied extensively since 1902, aimed at developing a technology to aid the interpretation of recorded joint vibration signals. Such technology would have clear advantages to current medical imaging systems, e.g. MRI, in speed, cost, and non-invasiveness. However, it has yet to achieve routine clinical use. This review aims to provide a balanced analysis of past and present attempts to progress vibration arthrometry. The literature reveals significant barriers to successful implementation of vibration arthrometry. From a technical standpoint, accounting for the intense variability within recorded signals caused by shifting characteristics of contacting joint surfaces and forces during motion is the primary issue. Additionally, understandable scepticism in the clinical community as to the reliability of vibration arthrometry represents a significant barrier to adoption. In conclusion, until the variability issue is shown to be adequately dealt with, and clear transparent evidence of clinical usefulness to orthopedic medicine demonstrated, it will be difficult to move the field forward. Future work should lead toward proving value to clinicians, and be transparent about how the variability issue has been resolved.


Articles with similar content:

Protocol for Retrieval and Analysis of Breast Implants
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.13, 2003, issue 1
Kenneth L. Jerina, V. Leroy Young, Clarence J. Wolf, Harold J. Brandon, Marla E. Watson
Breast Implants: Protocol for Retrieval and Analysis
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.27, 2017, issue 2-4
Kenneth L. Jerina, V. Leroy Young, Clarence J. Wolf, Harold J. Brandon, Marla E. Watson
Preface to Special Section: Retrieval Analysis of Implanted Medical Devices
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.20, 2010, issue 1
William M. Mihalko
INFLUENCE OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON ELECTROSTATIC SUPPRESSION OF THE LEIDENFROST STATE
4th Thermal and Fluids Engineering Conference, Vol.19, 2019, issue
Vaibhav Bahadur, Onur Ozkan
Hamstring Injuries
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.12, 2000, issue 4
R. L. Morgan-Jones, T. Cross, M. J. Cross