Fraje Watson1, Peter C Fino2, Matthew Thornton3,4, Constantinos Heracleous3, Rui Loureiro3, Julian J H Leong3,4. 1. University College London, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, HA7 4LP, UK. fraye.watson.18@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health & Kinesiology, University of Utah, 250 S 1850 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 3. University College London, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, HA7 4LP, UK. 4. Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, HA7 4LP, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Margin of Stability (MoS) is a widely used objective measure of dynamic stability during gait. Increasingly, researchers are using the MoS to assess the stability of pathological populations to gauge their stability capabilities and coping strategies, or as an objective marker of outcome, response to treatment or disease progression. The objectives are; to describe the types of pathological gait that are assessed using the MoS, to examine the methods used to assess MoS and to examine the way the MoS data is presented and interpreted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines (PRISMA) in the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, UCL Library Explore, Cochrane Library, Scopus. All articles measured the MoS of a pathologically affected adult human population whilst walking in a straight line. Extracted data were collected per a prospectively defined list, which included: population type, method of data analysis and model building, walking tasks undertaken, and interpretation of the MoS. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the final review. More than 15 different clinical populations were studied, most commonly post-stroke and unilateral transtibial amputee populations. Most participants were assessed in a gait laboratory using motion capture technology, whilst 2 studies used instrumented shoes. A variety of centre of mass, base of support and MoS definitions and calculations were described. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to assess use of the MoS and the first to consider its clinical application. Findings suggest the MoS has potential to be a helpful, objective measurement in a variety of clinically affected populations. Unfortunately, the methodology and interpretation varies, which hinders subsequent study comparisons. A lack of baseline results from large studies mean direct comparison between studies is difficult and strong conclusions are hard to make. Further work from the biomechanics community to develop reporting guidelines for MoS calculation methodology and a commitment to larger baseline studies for each pathology is welcomed.
BACKGROUND: The Margin of Stability (MoS) is a widely used objective measure of dynamic stability during gait. Increasingly, researchers are using the MoS to assess the stability of pathological populations to gauge their stability capabilities and coping strategies, or as an objective marker of outcome, response to treatment or disease progression. The objectives are; to describe the types of pathological gait that are assessed using the MoS, to examine the methods used to assess MoS and to examine the way the MoS data is presented and interpreted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines (PRISMA) in the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, UCL Library Explore, Cochrane Library, Scopus. All articles measured the MoS of a pathologically affected adult human population whilst walking in a straight line. Extracted data were collected per a prospectively defined list, which included: population type, method of data analysis and model building, walking tasks undertaken, and interpretation of the MoS. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the final review. More than 15 different clinical populations were studied, most commonly post-stroke and unilateral transtibial amputee populations. Most participants were assessed in a gait laboratory using motion capture technology, whilst 2 studies used instrumented shoes. A variety of centre of mass, base of support and MoS definitions and calculations were described. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to assess use of the MoS and the first to consider its clinical application. Findings suggest the MoS has potential to be a helpful, objective measurement in a variety of clinically affected populations. Unfortunately, the methodology and interpretation varies, which hinders subsequent study comparisons. A lack of baseline results from large studies mean direct comparison between studies is difficult and strong conclusions are hard to make. Further work from the biomechanics community to develop reporting guidelines for MoS calculation methodology and a commitment to larger baseline studies for each pathology is welcomed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Base of support; Dynamic stability margin; Extrapolated Centre of Mass; Margin of stability; Stroke; Transtibial amputation; XcoM
Authors: Alexander T Peebles; Alyson Reinholdt; Adam P Bruetsch; Sharon G Lynch; Jessie M Huisinga Journal: J Biomech Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Tarun Arora; Kristin E Musselman; Joel L Lanovaz; Gary Linassi; Catherine Arnold; Stephan Milosavljevic; Alison Oates Journal: PM R Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Tiphanie E Raffegeau; Sarah A Brinkerhoff; Grace K Kellaher; Sidney Baudendistel; Matthew J Terza; Jaimie A Roper; Chris J Hass Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Hunter Derby; Nathan O Conner; Amit Talukder; Aaron Griffith; Charles Freeman; Reuben Burch; Jeffrey D Simpson; Daniel J Goble; Adam C Knight; Harish Chander Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-07-08