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)).