Reliability testing of the heel marker in three-dimensional gait analysis

Introduction: In three-dimensional gait analysis, anatomical axes are defined by and therefore sensitive to marker placement. Previous analysis of the Oxford Foot Model (OFM) has suggested that the axes of the hindfoot are most sensitive to marker placement on the posterior aspect of the heel. Since other multi-segment foot models also use a similar marker, it is important to find methods to place this as accurately as possible. The aim of this pilot study was to test two different ‘jigs’ (anatomical alignment devices) against eyeball marker placement to improve reliability of heel marker placement and calculation of hindfoot angles using the OFM. Methods: Two jigs were designed using three-dimensional printing: a ratio caliper and heel mould. OFM kinematics were collected for ten healthy adults; intra-tester and inter-tester repeatability of hindfoot marker placement were assessed using both an experienced and inexperienced gait analyst for 5 clinically relevant variables. Results: For 3 out of 5 variables the intra-tester and inter-tester variability was below 2 degrees for all methods of marker placement. The ratio caliper had the lowest intra-tester variability for the experienced gait analyst in all 5 variables and for the inexperienced gait analyst in 4 out of 5 variables. However for inter-tester variability, the ratio caliper was only lower than the eyeball method in 2 out of the 5 variables. The mould produced the worst results for 3 of the 5 variables, and was particularly prone to variability when assessing average hindfoot rotation, making it the least reliable method overall. Conclusions: The use of the ratio caliper may improve intra-tester variability, but does not seem superior to the eyeball method of marker placement for inter-tester variability. The use of a heel mould is discouraged.Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

The effect of mono- versus multi-segment musculoskeletal models of the foot on simulated triceps surae lengths in pathological and healthy gait

Background: Estimating muscle-tendon complex (MTC) lengths is important for planning of soft tissue surgery and evaluating outcomes, e.g. in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Conventional musculoskeletal models often represent the foot as one rigid segment, called a mono-segment foot model (mono-SFM). However, a multi-segment foot model (multi-SFM) might provide better estimates of triceps surae MTC lengths, especially in patients with foot deformities. Research question: What is the effect of a mono- versus a multi-SFM on simulated ankle angles and triceps surae MTC lengths during gait in typically developing subjects and in children with CP with equinus, cavovarus or planovalgus foot deformities? Methods: 50 subjects were included, 10 non-affected adults, 10 typically developing children, and 30 children with spastic CP and foot deformities. During walking trials, marker trajectories were collected for two marker models, including a mono- and multi-segment foot; respectively Newington gait model and Oxford foot model. Two musculoskeletal lower body models were constructed in OpenSim with either a mono- or multi-SFM based on the corresponding marker models. Normalized triceps surae MTC lengths (soleus, gastrocnemius medialis and lateralis) and ankle angles were calculated and compared between models using statistical parametric mapping RM-ANOVAs. Root mean square error values between simulated MTC lengths were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank and rank-sum tests. Results: Mono-SFM simulated significantly more ankle dorsiflexion (7.5 ± 1.2°) and longer triceps surae lengths (difference; soleus:2.6 ± 0.29 %, gastrocnemius medialis:1.7 ± 0.2 %, gastrocnemius lateralis:1.8 ± 0.2%) than a multi-SFM. Differences between models were larger in children with CP compared to typically developing children and larger in the stance compared to the swing phase of gait. Largest differences were found in children with CP presenting with planovalgus (4.8 %) or cavovarus (3.8 %) foot deformities. Significance: It is advisable to use a multi-SFM in musculoskeletal models when simulating triceps surae MTC lengths, especially in individuals with planovalgus or cavovarus foot deformities.Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

Marker placement sensitivity of the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models in adults and children

Understanding the effect of individual marker misplacements is important to improve the repeatability and aid to the interpretation of multi-segment foot models like the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models (OFM, RFM). Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the effect of controlled anatomical marker misplacement on multi-segment foot kinematics (i.e. marker placement sensitivity) as calculated by OFM and RFM in a range of foot sizes. Ten healthy adults and nine children were included. A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on their right foot and a static standing trial was collected. Each marker was replaced ± 10 mm in steps of 1 mm over the three axes of a foot coordinate system. For each replacement the change in segment orientation (tibia, hindfoot, midfoot, forefoot) was calculated with respect to the reference pose in which no markers were replaced. A linear fit was made to calculate the sensitivity of segment orientation to marker misplacement in °/mm. Additionally, the effect of foot size on the sensitivity was determined using linear regressions. For every foot segment of both models, at least one marker had a sensitivity ≥ 1.0°/mm. Highest values were found for the markers at the posterior aspect of the calcaneus in OFM (1.5°/mm) and the basis of the second metatarsal in RFM (1.4°/mm). Foot size had a small effect on 40% of the sensitivity values. This study identified markers of which consistent placement is critical to prevent clinically relevant errors (>5°). For more repeatable multi-segment models, the role of these markers within the models’ definitions needs to be reconsidered.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi-segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

Background: Foot and ankle joint kinematics are measured during clinical gait analyses with marker-based multi-segment foot models. To improve on existing models, measurement errors due to soft tissue artifacts (STAs) and marker misplacements should be reduced. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define a clinically informed, universally applicable multi-segment foot model, which is developed to minimize these measurement errors. Methods: The Amsterdam foot model (AFM) is a follow-up of existing multi-segment foot models. It was developed by consulting a clinical expert panel and optimizing marker locations and segment definitions to minimize measurement errors. Evaluation of the model was performed in three steps. First, kinematic errors due to STAs were evaluated and compared to two frequently used foot models, i.e. the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models (OFM, RFM). Previously collected computed tomography data was used of 15 asymptomatic feet with markers attached, to determine the joint angles with and without STAs taken into account. Second, the sensitivity to marker misplacements was determined for AFM and compared to OFM and RFM using static standing trials of 19 asymptomatic subjects in which each marker was virtually replaced in multiple directions. Third, a preliminary inter- and intra-tester repeatability analysis was performed by acquiring 3D gait analysis data of 15 healthy subjects, who were equipped by two testers for two sessions. Repeatability of all kinematic parameters was assessed through analysis of the standard deviation (σ) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results: The AFM was defined and all calculation methods were provided. Errors in joint angles due to STAs were in general similar or smaller in AFM (≤2.9°) compared to OFM (≤4.0°) and RFM (≤6.7°). AFM was also more robust to marker misplacement than OFM and RFM, as a large sensitivity of kinematic parameters to marker misplacement (i.e. > 1.0°/mm) was found only two times for AFM as opposed to six times for OFM and five times for RFM. The average intra-tester repeatability of AFM angles was σ:2.2[0.9°], SEM:3.3 ± 0.9° and the inter-tester repeatability was σ:3.1[2.1°], SEM:5.2 ± 2.3°. Conclusions: Measurement errors of AFM are smaller compared to two widely-used multi-segment foot models. This qualifies AFM as a follow-up to existing foot models, which should be evaluated further in a range of clinical application areas.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

Comparing the kinematic output of the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models during normal gait and voluntary pathological gait in healthy adults

Background: The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) are the two most frequently used multi-segment models to measure foot kinematics. However, a comprehensive comparison of the kinematic output of these models is lacking. Research question: What are the differences in kinematic output between OFM and RFM during normal gait and typical pathological gait patterns in healthy adults?. Methods: A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on the right foot of ten healthy subjects. A static standing trial and six level walking trials were collected for normal gait and for four voluntarily adopted gait types: equinus, crouch, toe-in and toe-out. Joint angles were calculated for every trial for the hindfoot relative to shank (HF-SH), forefoot relative to hindfoot (FF-HF) and hallux relative to forefoot (HX-FF). Average static joint angles of both models were compared between models. After subtracting these offsets, the remaining dynamic angles were compared using statistical parametric mapping repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests. Furthermore, range of motion was compared between models for every angle. Results: For the static posture, RFM compared to OFM measured more plantar flexion (Δ = 6°) and internal rotation (Δ = 7°) for HF-SH, more plantar flexion (Δ = 34°) and inversion (Δ = 13°) for FF-HF and more dorsal flexion (Δ = 37°) and abduction (Δ = 12°) for HX-FF. During normal walking, kinematic differences were found in various parts of the gait cycle. Moreover, range of motion was larger in the HF-SH for OFM and in FF-HF and HX-FF for RFM. The differences between models were not the same for all gait types. Equinus and toe-out gait demonstrated most pronounced differences. Significance: Differences are present in kinematic output between OFM and RFM, which also depend on gait type. Therefore, kinematic output of foot and ankle studies should be interpreted with careful consideration of the multi-segment foot model used.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

The influence of soft tissue artifacts on multi-segment foot kinematics

Movement of skin markers with respect to their underlying bone (i.e. soft tissue artifacts (STAs)) might corrupt the accuracy of marker-based movement analyses. This study aims to quantify STAs in 3D for foot markers and their effect on multi-segment foot kinematics as calculated by the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models (OFM, RFM). Fifteen subjects with asymptomatic feet were seated on a custom-made loading device on a computed tomography (CT) table, with a combined OFM and RFM marker set on their right foot. One unloaded reference CT-scan with neutral foot position was performed, followed by 9 loaded CT-scans at different foot positions. The 3D-displacement (i.e. STA) of each marker in the underlying bone coordinate system between the reference scan and other scans was calculated. Subsequently, segment orientations and joint angles were calculated from the marker positions according to OFM and RFM definitions with and without STAs. The differences in degrees were defined as the errors caused by the marker displacements. Markers on the lateral malleolus and proximally on the posterior aspect of the calcaneus showed the largest STAs. The hindfoot-shank joint angle was most affected by STAs in the most extreme foot position (40° plantar flexion) in the sagittal plane for RFM (mean: 6.7°, max: 11.8°) and the transverse plane for OFM (mean: 3.9°, max: 6.8°). This study showed that STAs introduce clinically relevant errors in multi-segment foot kinematics. Moreover, it identified marker locations that are most affected by STAs, suggesting that their use within multi-segment foot models should be reconsidered.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro