Wouter Schallig1, Josien C van den Noort2, Jennifer McCahill3, Julie Stebbins4, Alberto Leardini5, Mario Maas6, Jaap Harlaar7, Marjolein M van der Krogt8. 1. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Quantification Center (MIQC), Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: w.schallig@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Quantification Center (MIQC), Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oxford Gait Laboratory, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Oxford Gait Laboratory, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. Movement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. 6. Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Quantification Center (MIQC), Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. 8. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) are the two most frequently used multi-segment models to measure foot kinematics. However, a comprehensive comparison of the kinematic output of these models is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the differences in kinematic output between OFM and RFM during normal gait and typical pathological gait patterns in healthy adults?. METHODS: A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on the right foot of ten healthy subjects. A static standing trial and six level walking trials were collected for normal gait and for four voluntarily adopted gait types: equinus, crouch, toe-in and toe-out. Joint angles were calculated for every trial for the hindfoot relative to shank (HF-SH), forefoot relative to hindfoot (FF-HF) and hallux relative to forefoot (HX-FF). Average static joint angles of both models were compared between models. After subtracting these offsets, the remaining dynamic angles were compared using statistical parametric mapping repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests. Furthermore, range of motion was compared between models for every angle. RESULTS: For the static posture, RFM compared to OFM measured more plantar flexion (Δ = 6°) and internal rotation (Δ = 7°) for HF-SH, more plantar flexion (Δ = 34°) and inversion (Δ = 13°) for FF-HF and more dorsal flexion (Δ = 37°) and abduction (Δ = 12°) for HX-FF. During normal walking, kinematic differences were found in various parts of the gait cycle. Moreover, range of motion was larger in the HF-SH for OFM and in FF-HF and HX-FF for RFM. The differences between models were not the same for all gait types. Equinus and toe-out gait demonstrated most pronounced differences. SIGNIFICANCE: Differences are present in kinematic output between OFM and RFM, which also depend on gait type. Therefore, kinematic output of foot and ankle studies should be interpreted with careful consideration of the multi-segment foot model used.
BACKGROUND: The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) are the two most frequently used multi-segment models to measure foot kinematics. However, a comprehensive comparison of the kinematic output of these models is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the differences in kinematic output between OFM and RFM during normal gait and typical pathological gait patterns in healthy adults?. METHODS: A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on the right foot of ten healthy subjects. A static standing trial and six level walking trials were collected for normal gait and for four voluntarily adopted gait types: equinus, crouch, toe-in and toe-out. Joint angles were calculated for every trial for the hindfoot relative to shank (HF-SH), forefoot relative to hindfoot (FF-HF) and hallux relative to forefoot (HX-FF). Average static joint angles of both models were compared between models. After subtracting these offsets, the remaining dynamic angles were compared using statistical parametric mapping repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests. Furthermore, range of motion was compared between models for every angle. RESULTS: For the static posture, RFM compared to OFM measured more plantar flexion (Δ = 6°) and internal rotation (Δ = 7°) for HF-SH, more plantar flexion (Δ = 34°) and inversion (Δ = 13°) for FF-HF and more dorsal flexion (Δ = 37°) and abduction (Δ = 12°) for HX-FF. During normal walking, kinematic differences were found in various parts of the gait cycle. Moreover, range of motion was larger in the HF-SH for OFM and in FF-HF and HX-FF for RFM. The differences between models were not the same for all gait types. Equinus and toe-out gait demonstrated most pronounced differences. SIGNIFICANCE: Differences are present in kinematic output between OFM and RFM, which also depend on gait type. Therefore, kinematic output of foot and ankle studies should be interpreted with careful consideration of the multi-segment foot model used.
Authors: Marjolein M van der Krogt; Jaap Harlaar; Wouter Schallig; Josien C van den Noort; Marjolein Piening; Geert J Streekstra; Mario Maas Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Tomas Klein; Graham J Chapman; Ondrej Lastovicka; Miroslav Janura; Jim Richards Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.050