ReviewRecommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models
Introduction
Over the past decade our understanding of foot and ankle motion during gait has increased significantly due to pioneering bone pin analysis and the expansion of multi-segment foot models used to assess and quantify kinematic parameters in gait (Carson et al., 2001, MacWilliams et al., 2003, Leardini et al., 2007, Nester et al., 2007, Lundgren et al., 2008, Wolf et al., 2008). More sophisticated analytical methods have allowed for a better understanding of foot and ankle function. Where previously the foot has been considered as a single rigid segment in the literature, invasive in vivo measurements of foot kinematics have highlighted its complexity and the importance of the joints distal to the hindfoot (Lundgren et al., 2008, Wolf et al., 2008).
The utility and rationale of multi-segment foot models have previously been explored in review articles, yet conflicting conclusions are presented (Rankine et al., 2008, Deschamps et al., 2011). In their review, Rankine et al. (2008) concluded that there is demonstrated clinical application of multi-segment foot models in the characterisation of gait associated with pathologies such as rheumatoid arthritis, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and hallux rigidus. However, this does not necessarily demonstrate wider clinical utility, as this conclusion is based on the literature, where multi-segment foot models have not been used extensively to describe other pathologies than those reported. In comparison, Deschamps et al. (2011) discuss the inherent issues relating to reliability, and conclude that further research is required to document the reliability and external validity of published models. This is likely to directly inform clinical utility.
Perhaps the broader issues of clinical utility and practicality could be easily resolved through standardisation of either reporting or more drastically modelling. The concept of standardisation has been approached by a number of international scientific societies in the past (such as the ISB recommendations for joint coordinate systems (Wu et al., 2002, Wu et al., 2005). These attempts have largely been accepted by the international community and are not commonly cited. While the initiative of the ISB was successful, there have been very few further examples of clear standards for reporting of models. In February 2012 the authors contacted the ISB, ESB, GCMAS, ASB and iFAB to investigate, if at the time, there were any standards for reporting models of the foot and ankle. All societies reported that there were no such standards in place.
Despite the review by Deschamps et al. (2011), providing much needed clarity with regards to the appropriate use of multi-segment foot models, their findings have been limited by the exclusion of single segment foot models. This current review differs to those previous published as it critically evaluates the concept of marker set and model development of both single segment and multi-segment foot models. The primary aim of this review was to systematically review the existing literature and identify all articles that report an original model or a major variation of an original model of the foot and ankle. From the findings of the literature review, and critical analysis, we also aim to propose a series of reporting standards, which we hope will help to facilitate consistency and transparency when developing a new model of the foot and ankle.
Section snippets
Search strategy
An electronic search of six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cinhahl, ISI Web of Science, Scopus and SportDISCUS) was performed on the 10th February 2012. The search strategy used was “foot model AND human AND kinematie AND gait”. Truncations were used to enable the search to retrieve all possible variations of a specific root word. A snowball method was applied secondary to the primary electronic search to identify literature that may have not been identified during the electronic database
Search results
The systematic search process and results are presented in Fig. 1. To ensure the search captured all relevant research, a secondary, first line snowball search was applied using the reference lists available in the articles identified in the database search. Although this may not have captured all possible articles in the literature, this secondary systematic search identified a further four articles not included in electronic search. Twenty-six original articles were included for the final
Discussion
The quality assessment undertaken in this review provides a resource for articles requiring assistance in both developing and appraising their research design and methodology, as it highlights aspects of methodology, data analysis and interpretation that should be evident in manuscripts written on the topic of foot and ankle biomechanics. Importantly, no reviewed articles scored less than 50% in the quality assessment, which indicates an acceptable standard of consistency in the reporting of
Conclusion
Despite the number of kinematic foot and ankle models currently available, only the Milwaukee Foot Model and the Oxford Foot Model have demonstrated external validity in the literature. The critical factor in an optimal foot model is that the model must remain clear to its purpose, and what it does actually represent. It seems more than appropriate to define an optimal foot model at this stage as a model that can be created and/or adapted to represent specific segments of research or clinical
Conflict of interest statement
None to declare.
Reference (68)
- et al.
Kinematic assessment of paediatric forefoot varus
Gait and Posture
(2009) - et al.
Walking kinematics in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A case-control study
Gait and Posture
(2011) - et al.
Repeatability of a multi-segment foot protocol in adult subjects
Gait & Posture
(2011) - et al.
Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis
Journal of Biomechanics
(2001) - et al.
The effect of low-mobile foot posture on multi-segment medial foot model gait kinematics
Gait and Posture
(2009) - et al.
A six degrees-of-freedom marker set for gait analysis: repeatability and comparison with a modified Helen Hayes set
Gait & Posture
(2009) - et al.
Intra-rater repeatability of the Oxford foot model in healthy children in different stages of the foot roll over process during gait
Gait & Posture
(2009) - et al.
Repeatability in the assessment of multi-segment foot kinematics
Gait and Posture
(2012) - et al.
Body of evidence supporting the clinical use of 3D multisegment foot models: a systematic review
Gait and Posture
(2011) - et al.
The impact of hallux valgus on foot kinematics: a cross-sectional, comparative study
Gait and Posture
(2010)
Subtalar neutral position as an offset for a kinematic model of the foot during walking
Gait and Posture
Joint stiffness of the ankle during walking after successful mobile-bearing total ankle replacement
Gait & Posture
Inter-segment foot motion and ground reaction forces over the stance phase of walking
Clinical Biomechanics
A multi-segment kinematic model of the foot with a novel definition of forefoot motion for use in clinical gait analysis during walking
Journal of Biomechanics
An anatomically based protocol for the description of foot segment kinematics during gait
Clinical Biomechanics
Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait
Gait and Posture
Repeatability and sources of variability in multi-center assessment of segmental foot kinematics in normal adults
Gait and Posture
Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking
Gait & Posture
Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait
Gait and Posture
Surgical reconstruction of posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: Prospective comparison of flexor digitorum longus substitution combined with lateral column lengthening or medial displacement calcaneal osteotomy
Gait and Posture
Three-dimensional kinematics of the rearfoot during the stance phase of walking in normal young adult males
Clinical Biomechanics
Foot and ankle kinematics in patients with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction
Gait Posture
In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model
Journal of Biomechanics
Quantification of soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion analysis: A systematic review
Gait & Posture
Changes in foot and lower limb coupling due to systematic variations in step width
Clinical Biomechanics
Segmental foot mobility in individuals with and without diabetes and neuropathy
Clinical Biomechanics
Comparison of in vivo segmental foot motion during walking and step descent in patients with midfoot arthritis and matched asymptomatic control subjects
Journal of Biomechanics
Three-dimensional kinematics of the forefoot, rearfoot, and leg without the function of tibialis posterior in comparison with normals during stance phase of walking
Clinical Biomechanics
Talocrural and talocalcaneal joint kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase of walking
Journal of Biomechanics
The Heidelberg foot measurement method: development, description and assessment
Gait and Posture
Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children
Gait and Posture
Gait compensations caused by foot deformity in cerebral palsy
Gait & Posture
Characterising the clinical and biomechanical features of severely deformed feet in rheumatoid arthritis
Gait and Posture
Kinematic differences between normal and low arched feet in children using the Heidelberg foot measurement method
Gait & Posture
Cited by (35)
Fast tool to evaluate 3D movements of the foot-ankle complex using multi-view depth sensors
2023, Medicine in Novel Technology and DevicesRepeatability of the Oxford Foot Model: Comparison of a team of assessors with different backgrounds and no prior experience of the Oxford Foot Model
2022, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) [11,12] is a six degrees of freedom foot model comprising three true segments (tibia, hindfoot [calcaneus], and forefoot [five metatarsals]) whilst the hallux is modelled as a vector. The OFM is considered the most widely applied model in the clinical setting [8,9] and has been involved in at least 22 clinical research studies [10], many focussing on foot pathology (for example [13,14]). Kinematic models that rely on skin mounted markers to define and track segments are particularly sensitive to measurement variability.
Musculoskeletal Modeling of the Foot and Ankle
2022, Foot and Ankle BiomechanicsMultisegment Foot Models
2022, Foot and Ankle BiomechanicsISB recommendations on the reporting of intersegmental forces and moments during human motion analysis
2020, Journal of Biomechanics