Accuracy and correlation between skin-marker based and radiographic measurements of medial longitudinal arch deformation

Caravaggi, Paolo; Rogati, Giulia; Leardini, Alberto; Ortolani, Maurizio; Barbieri, Mariachiara; Spasiano, Chiara; Durante, Stefano; Matias, Alessandra B.; Taddei, Ulisses T.; Sacco, Isabel de Camargo Neves

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110711

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…hindfoot or forefoot) for calculations in the dynamic trials. This MLA definition has been shown to be most accurate compared to other MLA definitions [ 46 ]. However, it can only be used when complete foot contact is present in the static trial, otherwise the projected markers are not at the sole of the foot as intended.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi‐segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

Schallig

Noort

Piening

et al. 2022

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Foot and ankle joint kinematics are measured during clinical gait analyses with marker-based multi-segment foot models. To improve on existing models, measurement errors due to soft tissue artifacts (STAs) and marker misplacements should be reduced. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define a clinically informed, universally applicable multi-segment foot model, which is developed to minimize these measurement errors. Methods The Amsterdam foot model (AFM) is a follow-up of existing multi-segment foot models. It was developed by consulting a clinical expert panel and optimizing marker locations and segment definitions to minimize measurement errors. Evaluation of the model was performed in three steps. First, kinematic errors due to STAs were evaluated and compared to two frequently used foot models, i.e. the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models (OFM, RFM). Previously collected computed tomography data was used of 15 asymptomatic feet with markers attached, to determine the joint angles with and without STAs taken into account. Second, the sensitivity to marker misplacements was determined for AFM and compared to OFM and RFM using static standing trials of 19 asymptomatic subjects in which each marker was virtually replaced in multiple directions. Third, a preliminary inter- and intra-tester repeatability analysis was performed by acquiring 3D gait analysis data of 15 healthy subjects, who were equipped by two testers for two sessions. Repeatability of all kinematic parameters was assessed through analysis of the standard deviation (σ) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results The AFM was defined and all calculation methods were provided. Errors in joint angles due to STAs were in general similar or smaller in AFM (≤2.9°) compared to OFM (≤4.0°) and RFM (≤6.7°). AFM was also more robust to marker misplacement than OFM and RFM, as a large sensitivity of kinematic parameters to marker misplacement (i.e. > 1.0°/mm) was found only two times for AFM as opposed to six times for OFM and five times for RFM. The average intra-tester repeatability of AFM angles was σ:2.2[0.9°], SEM:3.3 ± 0.9° and the inter-tester repeatability was σ:3.1[2.1°], SEM:5.2 ± 2.3°. Conclusions Measurement errors of AFM are smaller compared to two widely-used multi-segment foot models. This qualifies AFM as a follow-up to existing foot models, which should be evaluated further in a range of clinical application areas.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi‐segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

Schallig

Noort

Piening

et al. 2022

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of all the literature consulted, it is worth highlighting the contribution made by Caravaggi et al [ 20 , 23 ], as their methodology was very similar to that of our research. Both studies used and compared a motion analysis system with lateral projection radiographs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Cheng et al [ 19 ] used the values of 15°, 30°, and 45° extension of the 1st MTPJ to analyze the behavior of the PF and Achilles tendon, relating the MW to the contraction force of the Achilles tendon. Caravaggi et al [ 20 ] used wedges of 45°, 60°, and 75° extension under the 1st MTPJ.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of Windlass Mechanism in the Lower Limb Using Inertial Sensors

Manfredi-Márquez

Tavara-Vidalón

Tavaruela-Carrión

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: This study aimed to quantify the degrees of movement that occur in the lower limb using a kinematic system after taking two measurements of 45° and 60° of extension at the first metatarsophalangeal joint (1st MTPJ) and to test the validity of this sensor system using radiography. Methodology: This was a quasi-experimental test-post-test study with a single intervention group (25 subjects). Four inertial sensors were placed on the proximal phalange of the first toe, dorsum of the foot, medial-lateral of the leg (level of tibia), and medial-lateral of the thigh (level of femur). The extension of the 1st MTPJ produced movements of supination in the foot and rotation at the level of leg and thigh. We studied this mechanism in three situations (relaxed, 45°, and 60°) both with the sensors and with X-rays. Results: With the kinematic system, there was an increase in the range of movement in each of the variables, with a value of p < 0.05. The relationship between the kinematic system and the radiography was tested using Spearman’s rho test, obtaining a correlation coefficient of 0.624 and a value of p < 0.05, and the Bland–Altman graph, with 90% of the cases within the tolerance limits. Conclusions: The extension of the 1st MTPJ generated kinematic changes associated with supination movement in the midfoot and external rotation on the tibia and femur level. Both measurement techniques were very similar in the way that they quantified the degrees of extension of the 1st MTPJ. If we extrapolate this result to the measurement technique used by the inertial sensors, we could affirm that the values recorded in the supination and external rotation movements were reliable.

show abstract

“…In this study, we defined the MLA angle as the angle between two 3D vectors. Caravaggi et al (2021) observed that during the dynamic task, the variability of the 3D angle was consistently lower than the 2D angle, which was projected to the sagittal plane, suggesting that the 3D angle reflected the deformation of the MLA more accurately. Therefore, this study, based on high-speed DFIS, may observe the movement of the MLA more accurately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of Barefoot and Shod on the In Vivo Kinematics of Medial Longitudinal Arch During Running Based on a High-Speed Dual Fluoroscopic Imaging System

Zhang

et al. 2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shoes affect the biomechanical properties of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and further influence the foot’s overall function. Most previous studies on the MLA were based on traditional skin-marker motion capture, and the observation of real foot motion inside the shoes is difficult. Thus, the effect of shoe parameters on the natural MLA movement during running remains in question. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the differences in the MLA’s kinematics between shod and barefoot running by using a high-speed dual fluoroscopic imaging system (DFIS). Fifteen healthy habitual rearfoot runners were recruited. All participants ran at a speed of 3 m/s ± 5% along with an elevated runway in barefoot and shod conditions. High-speed DFIS was used to acquire the radiographic images of MLA movements in the whole stance phase, and the kinematics of the MLA were calculated. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare the kinematic characteristics of the MLA during the stance phase between shod and barefoot conditions. Compared with barefoot, shoe-wearing showed significant changes (p < 0.05) as follows: 1) the first metatarsal moved with less lateral direction at 80%, less anterior translation at 20%, and less superiority at 10–70% of the stance phase; 2) the first metatarsal moved with less inversion amounting to 20–60%, less dorsiflexion at 0–10% of the stance phase; 3) the inversion/eversion range of motion (ROM) of the first metatarsal relative to calcaneus was reduced; 4) the MLA angles at 0–70% of the stance phase were reduced; 5) the maximum MLA angle and MLA angle ROM were reduced in the shod condition. Based on high-speed DFIS, the above results indicated that shoe-wearing limited the movement of MLA, especially reducing the MLA angles, suggesting that shoes restricted the compression and recoil of the MLA, which further affected the spring-like function of the MLA.

show abstract

Accuracy and correlation between skin-marker based and radiographic measurements of medial longitudinal arch deformation

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi‐segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi‐segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

Study of Windlass Mechanism in the Lower Limb Using Inertial Sensors

Effects of Barefoot and Shod on the In Vivo Kinematics of Medial Longitudinal Arch During Running Based on a High-Speed Dual Fluoroscopic Imaging System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About