Literature DB >> 17631298

Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers.

C Nester1, R K Jones, A Liu, D Howard, A Lundberg, A Arndt, P Lundgren, A Stacoff, P Wolf.   

Abstract

The aim was to compare kinematic data from an experimental foot model comprising four segments ((i) heel, (ii) navicular/cuboid (iii) medial forefoot, (iv) lateral forefoot), to the kinematics of the individual bones comprising each segment. The foot model was represented using two different marker attachment protocols: (a) markers attached directly to the skin; (b) markers attached to rigid plates mounted on the skin. Bone data were collected for the tibia, talus, calcaneus, navicular, cuboid, medial cuneiform and first and fifth metatarsals (n=6). Based on the mean differences between the three data sets during stance, the differences between any two of the three kinematic protocols (i.e. bone vs skin, bone vs plate, skin vs plate) were >3 degrees in only 35% of the data and >5 degrees in only 3.5% of the data. However, the maximum difference between any two of the three protocols during stance was >3 degrees in 100% of the data, >5 degrees in 73% of the data and >8 degrees in 23% of the data. Differences were greatest for motion of the combined navicular/cuboid relative to the calcaneus and the medial forefoot segment relative to the navicular/cuboid. The differences between the data from the skin and plate protocols were consistently smaller than differences between either protocol and the kinematic data for each bone comprising the segment. The pattern of differences between skin and plate protocols and the actual bone motion showed no systematic pattern. It is unlikely that one rigid body foot model and marker attachment approach is always preferable over another.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17631298     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.05.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  35 in total

1.  Quantifying cross-scatter contamination in biplane fluoroscopy motion analysis systems.

Authors:  Janelle A Cross; Ben McHenry; Taly Gilat Schmidt
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-10-23

2.  Subject-Specific Axes of Rotation Based on Talar Morphology Do Not Improve Predictions of Tibiotalar and Subtalar Joint Kinematics.

Authors:  Jennifer A Nichols; Koren E Roach; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.934

3.  Kinematic description of soft tissue artifacts: quantifying rigid versus deformation components and their relation with bone motion.

Authors:  Helios de Rosario; Alvaro Page; Antonio Besa; Vicente Mata; Efraim Conejero
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Intrinsic foot muscles have the capacity to control deformation of the longitudinal arch.

Authors:  Luke A Kelly; Andrew G Cresswell; Sebastien Racinais; Rodney Whiteley; Glen Lichtwark
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 4.118

5.  Normative rearfoot motion during barefoot and shod walking using biplane fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Kevin J Campbell; Katharine J Wilson; Robert F LaPrade; Thomas O Clanton
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Active regulation of longitudinal arch compression and recoil during walking and running.

Authors:  Luke A Kelly; Glen Lichtwark; Andrew G Cresswell
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 4.118

7.  Using three-dimensional gait data for foot/ankle orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Gwyneth de Vries; Kevin Roy; Victoria Chester
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2009-11-03

8.  Foot kinematics during a bilateral heel rise test in participants with stage II posterior tibial tendon dysfunction.

Authors:  Jeff R Houck; Christopher Neville; Josh Tome; A Samuel Flemister
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.751

9.  Ankle and foot kinematics associated with stage II PTTD during stance.

Authors:  Jeff R Houck; Christopher G Neville; Josh Tome; Adolph S Flemister
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.827

10.  Segmental motion of forefoot and hindfoot as a diagnostic tool.

Authors:  Nori Okita; Steven A Meyers; John H Challis; Neil A Sharkey
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-09-07       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.