| Literature DB >> 30382920 |
Wenbao Wu1, Wei Zeng2, Limin Ma3, Chengzhi Yuan4, Yu Zhang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) plays an important role in stabilizing translation and rotation of the tibia relative to the femur. ACL injury alters knee kinematics and usually links to the alternation of gait patterns. The aim of this study is to develop a new method to distinguish between gait patterns of patients with anterior cruciate ligament deficient (ACL-D) knees and healthy controls with ACL-intact (ACL-I) knees based on nonlinear features and neural networks. Therefore ACL injury will be automatically and objectively detected.Entities:
Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament; Euclidean distance (ED); Gait analysis; Movement disorders; Neural networks; Phase space reconstruction (PSR)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30382920 PMCID: PMC6211421 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-018-0594-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Block diagram of the proposed method for the classification of gait patterns between ACL-D and ACL-I knees
Descriptive characteristics of the ACL-D and ACL-I subjects
| Healthy controls with ACL-I knees | Patients with ACL-D knees | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 38.6 (5.9) | 40.3 (6.1) | 0.352 |
| Height (cm), mean (SD) | 165.4 (9.6) | 164.1 (7.6) | 0.630 |
| Weight (kg), mean (SD) | 65.7 (10.5) | 63.5 (9.4) | 0.474 |
| Male/female | 14/14 | 11/7 | − |
Fig. 2A portable marker-based motion analysis system [42]: A The instrument for knee kinematics analysis; B Identifying the femoral and tibial anatomical landmarks using a hand-held probe prior to kinematic data capture
Mean, SD, significant statistical difference p and effect sizes of the range of motion (ROM) of tibiofemoral rotations and translations for 28 healthy controls with ACL-I knees and 18 patients with ACL-D knees
| Parameters | Groups | Difference between groups | Effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACL-D knees | ACL-I knees | Cohen’s | ||
| ROM of VV (degree) | 13.01 (5.45) | 15.40 (4.17) | 0.1 | 0.51 |
| ROM of IE rotation (degree) | 18.87 (5.77) | 22.45 (4.69) | 0.03 | 0.70 |
| ROM of FE (degree) | 59.18 (8.49) | 71.76 (6.93) | < 0.001 | 1.66 |
| ROM of AP translation (cm) | 2.41 (0.81) | 1.95 (0.52) | 0.02 | − 0.71 |
| ROM of PD translation (cm) | 1.94 (0.74) | 2.38 (0.44) | 0.01 | 0.77 |
| ROM of ML translation (cm) | 1.84 (0.49) | 1.86 (0.37) | 0.88 | 0.05 |
Fig. 3The 3-D joint rotations and translations during walking of ACL-D and ACL-I knees. Ensemble curves of each subject group were normalized from heel strike to heel strike in a gait cycle. a IE rotation; b FE; c AP translation; d PD translation
Fig. 4Samples of 3D PSR of the knee kinematic signals from ACL-D and ACL-I gait patterns: a 3D PSR of the IE rotation; b 3D PSR of the FE; c 3D PSR of the AP translation; d 3D PSR of the PD translation
Fig. 5Samples of Euclidian distance of 3D PSR of the knee kinematic signals from ACL-D and ACL-I gait patterns: a Euclidian distance of 3D PSR of the IE rotation; b Euclidian distance of 3D PSR of the FE; c Euclidian distance of 3D PSR of the AP translation; d Euclidian distance of 3D PSR of the PD translation
Confusion matrix of gait pattern classification between ACL-D and ACL-I knees by using twofold cross-validation method
| ACL-D knees | ACL-I knees | |
|---|---|---|
| ACL-D knees | 8 | 1 |
| ACL-I knees | 1 | 13 |
Confusion matrix of gait pattern classification between ACL-D and ACL-I knees by using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation method
| ACL-D knees | ACL-I knees | |
|---|---|---|
| ACL-D knees | 17 | 1 |
| ACL-I knees | 1 | 27 |
Fig. 6Performance of the proposed classification approach evaluated by the twofold cross-validation and leave-one-subject-out cross-validation methods
Fig. 7Comparing the results of accuracy in classifying gait patterns between ACL-I and ACL-D groups using different methods