Literature DB >> 27414041

Predicting tibiotalar and subtalar joint angles from skin-marker data with dual-fluoroscopy as a reference standard.

Jennifer A Nichols1, Koren E Roach2, Niccolo M Fiorentino3, Andrew E Anderson4.   

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the tibiotalar and subtalar joints provide near six degree-of-freedom (DOF) motion. Yet, kinematic models frequently assume one DOF at each of these joints. In this study, we quantified the accuracy of kinematic models to predict joint angles at the tibiotalar and subtalar joints from skin-marker data. Models included 1 or 3 DOF at each joint. Ten asymptomatic subjects, screened for deformities, performed 1.0m/s treadmill walking and a balanced, single-leg heel-rise. Tibiotalar and subtalar joint angles calculated by inverse kinematics for the 1 and 3 DOF models were compared to those measured directly in vivo using dual-fluoroscopy. Results demonstrated that, for each activity, the average error in tibiotalar joint angles predicted by the 1 DOF model were significantly smaller than those predicted by the 3 DOF model for inversion/eversion and internal/external rotation. In contrast, neither model consistently demonstrated smaller errors when predicting subtalar joint angles. Additionally, neither model could accurately predict discrete angles for the tibiotalar and subtalar joints on a per-subject basis. Differences between model predictions and dual-fluoroscopy measurements were highly variable across subjects, with joint angle errors in at least one rotation direction surpassing 10° for 9 out of 10 subjects. Our results suggest that both the 1 and 3 DOF models can predict trends in tibiotalar joint angles on a limited basis. However, as currently implemented, neither model can predict discrete tibiotalar or subtalar joint angles for individual subjects. Inclusion of subject-specific attributes may improve the accuracy of these models.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ankle; Dynamic imaging; Hindfoot; Inverse kinematics; Motion capture

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27414041      PMCID: PMC5810542          DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  29 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  A geometric model of the human ankle joint.

Authors:  A Leardini; J J O'Connor; F Catani; S Giannini
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Differences in men's and women's mean ankle ligamentous laxity.

Authors:  R D Wilkerson; M A Mason
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2000

4.  Analysis of a kinetic multi-segment foot model. Part I: Model repeatability and kinematic validity.

Authors:  Dustin A Bruening; Kevin M Cooney; Frank L Buczek
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 2.840

5.  The role of ankle ligaments and articular geometry in stabilizing the ankle.

Authors:  Kota Watanabe; Harold B Kitaoka; Lawrence J Berglund; Kristin D Zhao; Kenton R Kaufman; Kai-Nan An
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Validation of a new model-based tracking technique for measuring three-dimensional, in vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics.

Authors:  Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Stephanie K Brock; Scott Tashman
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.097

7.  Subject-specific models of the hindfoot reveal a relationship between morphology and passive mechanical properties.

Authors:  Carl W Imhauser; Sorin Siegler; Jayaram K Udupa; Jason R Toy
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  In Vivo Kinematics of the Tibiotalar and Subtalar Joints in Asymptomatic Subjects: A High-Speed Dual Fluoroscopy Study.

Authors:  Koren E Roach; Bibo Wang; Ashley L Kapron; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Charles L Saltzman; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 2.097

9.  Arthrometric measurement of ankle-complex motion: normative values.

Authors:  Neil A Schwarz; John E Kovaleski; Robert J Heitman; Larry R Gurchiek; Coral Gubler-Hanna
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait.

Authors:  Bruce A MacWilliams; Matthew Cowley; Diane E Nicholson
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.840

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Turmell-Meter: A Device for Estimating the Subtalar and Talocrural Axes of the Human Ankle Joint by Applying the Product of Exponentials Formula.

Authors:  Óscar Agudelo-Varela; Julio Vargas-Riaño; Ángel Valera
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-04

3.  An automated method for defining anatomic coordinate systems in the hindfoot.

Authors:  Jessica A Brown; Tom Gale; William Anderst
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Healthy ankle and hindfoot kinematics during gait: Sex differences, asymmetry and coupled motion revealed through dynamic biplane radiography.

Authors:  Shumeng Yang; Stephen P Canton; MaCalus V Hogan; William Anderst
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.424

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.