Research Article
Computed Tomographic Image Analysis Based on FEM Performance Comparison of Segmentation on Knee Joint Reconstruction
Table 1
Error rates between Method 1 and Methods 2, 3, and 4.
| Interpretation type | 0° | 45° | 90° | 135° | |
| von Mises stress (MPa) | | | | | | Method 1 | 7.447 | 6.356 | 5.67 | 6.371 | — | Method 2 | 8.06 | 6.694 | 5.858 | 6.082 | 1.428 | Method 3 | 7.520 | 6.460 | 5.335 | 5.444 | 1.439 | Method 4 | 7.468 | 6.544 | 5.479 | 5.619 | 1.152 | Reaction force (N) | | | | | | Method 1 | 9.878 | 6.43 | 6.324 | 6.354 | — | Method 2 | 9.153 | 8.996 | 9.256 | 8.885 | 8.754 | Method 3 | 8.317 | 6.333 | 6.1732 | 6.06 | 2.103 | Method 4 | 7.695 | 6.808 | 6.510 | 6.459 | 2.852 | Contact stress (MPa) | | | | | | Method 1 | | | | | | Femur | 11.391 | 7.278 | 5.235 | 3.914 | — | Tibia | 0.66 | 0.907 | 0.432 | 2.651 | — | Method 2 | | | | | | Femur | 13.89 | 7.335 | 6.302 | 6.778 | 6.487 | Tibia | 0 | 0.7 | 1.669 | 2.774 | 2.227 | Method 3 | | | | | | Femur | 20.319 | 8.87 | 5.185 | 3.728 | 10.756 | Tibia | 0 | 0.765 | 0.606 | 2.435 | 1.192 | Method 4 | | | | | | Femur | 11.853 | 9.128 | 5.587 | 3.612 | 2.966 | Tibia | 0 | 0 | 0.77 | 2.147 | 2.409 |
|
|
(: Method 2 − Method 1, : Method 3 − Method 1, : Method 4 − Method 1, : error rate by (10)).
|