The Glasgow‐Maastricht foot model, evaluation of a 26 segment kinematic model of the foot

Abstract

BackgroundAccurately measuring of intrinsic foot kinematics using skin mounted markers is difficult, limited in part by the physical dimensions of the foot. Existing kinematic foot models solve this problem by combining multiple bones into idealized rigid segments. This study presents a novel foot model that allows the motion of the 26 bones to be individually estimated via a combination of partial joint constraints and coupling the motion of separate joints using kinematic rhythms.MethodsSegmented CT data from one healthy subject was used to create a template Glasgow-Maastricht foot model (GM-model). Following this, the template was scaled to produce subject-specific models for five additional healthy participants using a surface scan of the foot and ankle. Forty-three skin mounted markers, mainly positioned around the foot and ankle, were used to capture the stance phase of the right foot of the six healthy participants during walking. The GM-model was then applied to calculate the intrinsic foot kinematics.ResultsDistinct motion patterns where found for all joints. The variability in outcome depended on the location of the joint, with reasonable results for sagittal plane motions and poor results for transverse plane motions.ConclusionsThe results of the GM-model were comparable with existing literature, including bone pin studies, with respect to the range of motion, motion pattern and timing of the motion in the studied joints. This novel model is the most complete kinematic model to date. Further evaluation of the model is warranted.

A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics

“…Multi-segment foot models have become increasingly popular for describing foot motion during human walking or running (Leardini et al, 1999; Stebbins et al, 2006; Bruening et al, 2012; Kelly et al, 2014). These models divide the foot into multiple rigid segments to measure the motion of generalized foot regions, such as the calcaneus, mid-foot (cuneiforms, cuboid, and navicular), and metatarsals (Leardini et al, 1999; Oosterwaal et al, 2016). While dividing the foot into various segments allows for the estimation of movement of foot-bones that cannot be easily measured, this approach requires a number of assumptions that may lead to inaccuracies in kinematic, and kinetic measures (Nester et al, 2007; Zelik and Honert, 2018).…”

The Reliability of Foot and Ankle Bone and Joint Kinematics Measured With Biplanar Videoradiography and Manual Scientific Rotoscoping

“…Soft tissue movement can often also cause pin bending, and thus may cause errors in kinematics. Optical motion capture has also informed the understanding of human foot function via the implementation of multi-segment foot models (Carson et al, 2001;Jenkyn and Nicol, 2007;Leardini et al, 2007;Rankine et al, 2008;Oosterwaal et al, 2016). This approach does not carry the risks of bone-pin approaches and can be implemented in clinical populations (Leardini et al, 2019).…”

Simulating gait in patients with knee osteoarthritis

“…41 The physiological cross-sectional area is an important parameter for muscle architecture, which is defined as the arrangement of muscle fibres relative to the axis of force generation. 42 In addition, the functional properties of the muscle depend considerably on its architecture. 42 Although previous studies provided us with relevant insights to improve subject specific musculoskeletal models, it is still unknown how changes in muscle strength influences model outcomes.…”

“…42 In addition, the functional properties of the muscle depend considerably on its architecture. 42 Although previous studies provided us with relevant insights to improve subject specific musculoskeletal models, it is still unknown how changes in muscle strength influences model outcomes. 37 Personalisation of muscle strength can be achieved by relative simple mathematical approximation or by measuring the muscle volume directly.…”

“…For example, the foot is often referred to as a single segment, which does not reflect the foot kinematics properly. 42 Furthermore, the knee is repeatedly modelled as a hinge joint, disregarding translational and rotational movements, which might decrease accuracy of model predictions. 43 Cine phase-contrast MRI has been shown to be a promising tool for characterizing personalised joint kinematics.…”