Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Oral presentation

Reliability of three foot models to examine paediatric gait

Auteurs: Ryan Mahaffey, Stewart Morrison, Wendy Drechsler, Mary Cramp

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research | bijlage 1/2012

share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
insite
ZOEKEN

Background

A variety of multi-segmental foot models have been produced to examine patterns of foot segmental movement during gait cycle to identify biomechanical differences between normal and pathological foot function[13]. The reliability of foot models to accurately describe motion of the foot joints is dependent on the ability of the examiner to repeatedly apply markers to specific landmarks and the relevance of models’ segmental descriptions to underlying anatomy. The aim of this study was to test the reliability of segmental angles measured by three published foot models during paediatric gait.

Materials and methods

Sixteen children, aged 6 to 12 years old, were recruited to the study. Marker sets for three foot models 3DFoot[1], Oxford Foot Model (OFM)[2], and Kinfoot[3] were applied to their right feet simultaneously which to the authors knowledge, is the first direct comparison of the three models during gait. Each foot model was assessed for repeatability of maximal joint angle and range of motion during the gait cycle between two testing occasions. Absolute angular differences and standard error of measurement (SEM) are reported.

Results

Repeatability of all maximal segmental angles and range of motions were higher in 3DFoot compared to OFM and Kinfoot (Table 1).
Table 1
Inter-session repeatability of foot model’s 3D maximal segmental angles over the gait cycle.
Model
Segments
Maximal joint angle
Range of joint angle
  
° Difference
SEM °
° Difference
SEM °
OFM
Hindfoot to Shank
2.1 ± 15.1
10.9
1.2 ± 8.0
5.7
3DFoot
Hindfoot to Shank
1.0 ± 5.2
3.6
1.0 ± 4.6
3.3
Kinfoot
Hindfoot to Shank
1.0 ± 5.1
3.6
1.4 ± 6.3
4.3
3DFoot
Midfoot to Hindfoot
0.8 ± 3.5
2.2
0.3 ± 2.7
1.9
Kinfoot
Midfoot to Hindfoot
3.0 ± 11.1
6.7
3.7 ± 11.3
6.6
OFM
Metatarsals to Hindfoot
0.8 ± 8.5
5.3
1.3 ± 5.7
5.4
3DFoot
Metatarsals to Midfoot
0.7 ± 4.0
2.9
0.6 ± 3.6
2.5
Kinfoot
Metatarsals to Midfoot
2.8 ± 7.8
4.8
2.6 ± 6.6
3.7
OFM
Hallux to Metatarsals
2.3 ± 15.6
11.2
0.4 ± 13.7
9.1
3DFoot
Hallux to Metatarsals
1.5 ± 10.0
6.2
0.4 ± 12.6
8.8
Kinfoot
Hallux to Metatarsals
4.4 ± 21.8
15.1
2.1 ± 11.8
7.2

Conclusion

Decreased measurement error observed in 3DFoot and Kinfoot models may be attributable to normalisation of kinematics data to subject standing position. In the OFM, non-normalisation of gait data resulted in variable segmental offsets, particularly in the frontal plane. Greater measurement error was observed for several foot segments in the Kinfoot model. This may be due to discrepancies in model segment definitions in relation to the underlying joint anatomy, especially around the midfoot to hindfoot segments. 3Dfoot model consistently showed the least measurement error in the segment motions examined and thus is appropriate for use to examine foot biomechanics in gait.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Leardini A, Benedetti M, Berti L, Bettinelli D, Nativo R, Giannini S: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture. 2007, 25: 453-462. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.017. CrossRefPubMed Leardini A, Benedetti M, Berti L, Bettinelli D, Nativo R, Giannini S: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture. 2007, 25: 453-462. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.017. CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Carson M, Harrington M, Thompson N, O'Connor J, Theologis T: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech. 2001, 34: 1299-2307. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00101-4. CrossRefPubMed Carson M, Harrington M, Thompson N, O'Connor J, Theologis T: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech. 2001, 34: 1299-2307. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00101-4. CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference MacWilliams B, Cowley M, Nicholson D: Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture. 2003, 17: 214-224. 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00103-0. CrossRefPubMed MacWilliams B, Cowley M, Nicholson D: Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture. 2003, 17: 214-224. 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00103-0. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Reliability of three foot models to examine paediatric gait
Auteurs
Ryan Mahaffey
Stewart Morrison
Wendy Drechsler
Mary Cramp
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2012
Uitgeverij
BioMed Central
Gepubliceerd in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research / Uitgave bijlage 1/2012
Elektronisch ISSN: 1757-1146
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-5-S1-O18

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2012

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 1/2012 Naar de uitgave