Jennifer N Maykut1, Jeffery A Taylor-Haas2, Mark V Paterno2, Christopher A DiCesare3, Kevin R Ford4. 1. Rehabilitation Division, OhioHealth Westerville Medical Campus, Westerville, OH, USA. 2. Occupational and Physical Therapy Division, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Physical Therapy Division, High Point University, High Point, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional motion analysis is the "gold standard" for evaluating kinematic variables during treadmill running. However, its use is limited by temporal and financial restraints. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of 2D video analysis for frontal plane kinematic variables during treadmill running. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy male and female collegiate cross-country runners completed a running protocol at a self-selected speed. Frontal plane kinematic data were collected using 3D and 2D motion analysis systems. Variables of interest included contralateral pelvic drop (CPD), peak hip adduction angle (HADD), and peak knee abduction angle (KABD). Pearson Product Correlation Coefficients were used to determine the relationship between the 3D and 2D systems for each variable. Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used to assess intra-rater reliability of the user of the 2D software. RESULTS: The 2D testing method demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability for peak HADD (ICCs: 0.951-0.963), peak CPD (0.958-0.966), and peak KABD (ICCs: 0.955-0.976). Moderate correlations between 2D and 3D measures of HADD on the left (0.539; p=0.007) and the right (0.623; p=0.001) and peak KABD on the left (0.541; p=.006) lower extremity were found. No statistically significant correlation of CPD was found between the 2D and 3D systems. The 2D measure of CPD had a strong correlation to the 2D assessment of HADD on both the left (0.801; p=0.0001) and the right (0.746; p=0.0001) extremity. CONCLUSION: These findings and the ease of data capture using 2D software provide support for the utility of 2D video analysis in the evaluation of frontal plane variables, specifically HADD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2B.
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional motion analysis is the "gold standard" for evaluating kinematic variables during treadmill running. However, its use is limited by temporal and financial restraints. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of 2D video analysis for frontal plane kinematic variables during treadmill running. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy male and female collegiate cross-country runners completed a running protocol at a self-selected speed. Frontal plane kinematic data were collected using 3D and 2D motion analysis systems. Variables of interest included contralateral pelvic drop (CPD), peak hip adduction angle (HADD), and peak knee abduction angle (KABD). Pearson Product Correlation Coefficients were used to determine the relationship between the 3D and 2D systems for each variable. Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used to assess intra-rater reliability of the user of the 2D software. RESULTS: The 2D testing method demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability for peak HADD (ICCs: 0.951-0.963), peak CPD (0.958-0.966), and peak KABD (ICCs: 0.955-0.976). Moderate correlations between 2D and 3D measures of HADD on the left (0.539; p=0.007) and the right (0.623; p=0.001) and peak KABD on the left (0.541; p=.006) lower extremity were found. No statistically significant correlation of CPD was found between the 2D and 3D systems. The 2D measure of CPD had a strong correlation to the 2D assessment of HADD on both the left (0.801; p=0.0001) and the right (0.746; p=0.0001) extremity. CONCLUSION: These findings and the ease of data capture using 2D software provide support for the utility of 2D video analysis in the evaluation of frontal plane variables, specifically HADD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2B.
Entities:
Keywords:
2D video analysis; contralateral pelvic drop; hip adduction; running
Authors: R N van Gent; D Siem; M van Middelkoop; A G van Os; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; B W Koes Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Jeffery A Taylor-Haas; Jason A Hugentobler; Christopher A DiCesare; Kathryn C Hickey Lucas; Nathaniel A Bates; Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2014-08
Authors: Joseph A Panos; Joshua T Hoffman; Samuel C Wordeman; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Fábio Carlos Lucas de Oliveira; Anny Fredette; Sherezada Ochoa Echeverría; Charles Sebiyo Batcho; Jean-Sébastien Roy Journal: Sports Health Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Mark F Reinking; Leigh Dugan; Nolan Ripple; Karen Schleper; Henry Scholz; Jesse Spadino; Cameron Stahl; Thomas G McPoil Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2018-06
Authors: Emily B Beyer; Rena F Hale; Aaron R Hellem; Allison M Mumbleau; Nathan D Schilaty; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-10
Authors: Jennifer A Hogg; Lynette M Carlson; Abigail Rogers; Mason W Briles; Shellie N Acocello; Gary B Wilkerson Journal: J Clin Transl Res Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: José Roberto de Souza Júnior; Pedro Henrique Reis Rabelo; Thiago Vilela Lemos; Jean-Francois Esculier; João Pedro da Silva Carto; João Paulo Chieregato Matheus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240