Kristen Nicholson1, Chris Church2, Colton Takata2, Tim Niiler2, Brian Po-Jung Chen3, Nancy Lennon2, Julie P Sees3, John Henley2, Freeman Miller3. 1. Gait Analysis Laboratory, Nemours/A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA. Electronic address: Kristen.Nicholson@nemours.org. 2. Gait Analysis Laboratory, Nemours/A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Nemours/A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many skin-mounted three-dimensional multi-segmented foot models are currently in use for gait analysis. Evidence regarding the repeatability of models, including between trial and between assessors, is mixed, and there are no between model comparisons of kinematic results. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study explores differences in kinematics and repeatability between five three-dimensional multi-segmented foot models. The five models include duPont, Heidelberg, Oxford Child, Leardini, and Utah. METHODS: Hind foot, forefoot, and hallux angles were calculated with each model for ten individuals. Two physical therapists applied markers three times to each individual to assess within and between therapist variability. Standard deviations were used to evaluate marker placement variability. Locally weighted regression smoothing with alpha-adjusted serial T tests analysis was used to assess kinematic similarities. RESULTS: All five models had similar variability, however, the Leardini model showed high standard deviations in plantarflexion/dorsiflexion angles. P-value curves for the gait cycle were used to assess kinematic similarities. The duPont and Oxford models had the most similar kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: All models demonstrated similar marker placement variability. Lower variability was noted in the sagittal and coronal planes compared to rotation in the transverse plane, suggesting a higher minimal detectable change when clinically considering rotation and a need for additional research. Between the five models, the duPont and Oxford shared the most kinematic similarities. While patterns of movement were very similar between all models, offsets were often present and need to be considered when evaluating published data.
BACKGROUND: Many skin-mounted three-dimensional multi-segmented foot models are currently in use for gait analysis. Evidence regarding the repeatability of models, including between trial and between assessors, is mixed, and there are no between model comparisons of kinematic results. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study explores differences in kinematics and repeatability between five three-dimensional multi-segmented foot models. The five models include duPont, Heidelberg, Oxford Child, Leardini, and Utah. METHODS: Hind foot, forefoot, and hallux angles were calculated with each model for ten individuals. Two physical therapists applied markers three times to each individual to assess within and between therapist variability. Standard deviations were used to evaluate marker placement variability. Locally weighted regression smoothing with alpha-adjusted serial T tests analysis was used to assess kinematic similarities. RESULTS: All five models had similar variability, however, the Leardini model showed high standard deviations in plantarflexion/dorsiflexion angles. P-value curves for the gait cycle were used to assess kinematic similarities. The duPont and Oxford models had the most similar kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: All models demonstrated similar marker placement variability. Lower variability was noted in the sagittal and coronal planes compared to rotation in the transverse plane, suggesting a higher minimal detectable change when clinically considering rotation and a need for additional research. Between the five models, the duPont and Oxford shared the most kinematic similarities. While patterns of movement were very similar between all models, offsets were often present and need to be considered when evaluating published data.
Authors: Min Gyu Kyung; Ppu Ri Bak; Jong Wook Lim; Dong-Oh Lee; Gil Young Park; Dong Yeon Lee Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 3.050