On the Influence of the Shoulder Kinematic Chain on Joint Kinematics and Musculotendon Lengths During Wheelchair Propulsion Estimated From Multibody Kinematics Optimization

Abstract

Multibody kinematic optimization is frequently used to assess shoulder kinematics during manual wheelchair (MWC) propulsion, but multiple kinematics chains are available. It is hypothesized that these different kinematic chains affect marker tracking, shoulder kinematics, and resulting musculotendon (MT) lengths. In this study, shoulder kinematics and MT lengths obtained from four shoulder kinematic chains (open-loop thorax-clavicle-scapula-humerus (M1), closed-loop with contact ellipsoid (M2), scapula rhythm from regression equations (M3), and a single ball-and- socket joint between the thorax and the humerus (M4) were compared. Right-side shoulder kinematics from seven subjects were obtained with 34 reflective markers and a scapula locator using an optoelectronic motion capture system while propelling on a MWC simulator. Data were processed based on the four models. The results showed the impact of shoulder kinematic chains on all studied variables. Marker reconstruction errors were found to be similar between M1 and M2 and lower than for M3 and M4. Few degrees-of-freedom (DoF) were noticeably different between M1 and M2, but all shoulder DoFs were significantly affected between M1 and M4. As a consequence of differences in joint kinematics, MT lengths were affected by the kinematic chain definition. The contact ellipsoid (M2) was found as a good trade-off between marker tracking and penetration avoidance of the scapula. The regression-based model (M3) was less efficient due to limited humerus elevation during MWC propulsion, as well as the ball-and-socket model (M4) which appeared not suitable for upper limbs activities, including MWC propulsion.

Manual wheelchair biomechanics while overcoming various environmental barriers: A systematic review

“…Upper-limb kinematics and subject kinetics were reported for ascending slope propulsion as well as, to a lesser extent, for curb and cross-slope, but not for ground types. Yet, when reported, methodological differences in kinetic and kinematic acquisition (opto-electronic motion capture system, system based on inertial measurement units) and in data processing (musculoskeletal model used for computation of joint angles and moments [ 66 , 67 ], point and basis of expression of net joint moments [ 68 , 69 ]) hinder rigorous comparisons of studies on the same barrier, and prevent the formulation of a reliable evidence-based synthesis of the propulsion biomechanics for each barrier. Lastly, poor data acquisition accuracy may lead to improper conclusions, especially for kinematics and kinetics quantities [ 70 , 71 ].…”

Comparison of a Scaled Cadaver-Based Musculoskeletal Model With a Clinical Upper Extremity Model

“…Numerous experimental studies have reported the mean residual error on the marker positions [9], and a large range of residual values was found (4-40 mm) according to the complexity of the kinematic chain model (e.g., upperlimb or full-body model), the degree of personalization as well as the movement of interest. Marker reconstruction residuals have been considered a criterion for accuracy in bone and joint kinematics, with the underlying assumption that a better kinematic chain would result in smaller marker reconstruction errors [69]. For systematically evaluating MKO models, Begon et al [9] have recommended ensuring that the marker residuals remain within the STA range reported in the literature [23].…”