Cargando…

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

Measuring motion of the human foot presents a unique challenge due to the large number of closely packed bones with congruent articulating surfaces. Optical motion capture (OMC) and multi-segment models can be used to infer foot motion, but might be affected by soft tissue artifact (STA). Biplanar v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kessler, Sarah E., Rainbow, Michael J., Lichtwark, Glen A., Cresswell, Andrew G., D'Andrea, Susan E., Konow, Nicolai, Kelly, Luke A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31508415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00199
_version_ 1783447389038706688
author Kessler, Sarah E.
Rainbow, Michael J.
Lichtwark, Glen A.
Cresswell, Andrew G.
D'Andrea, Susan E.
Konow, Nicolai
Kelly, Luke A.
author_facet Kessler, Sarah E.
Rainbow, Michael J.
Lichtwark, Glen A.
Cresswell, Andrew G.
D'Andrea, Susan E.
Konow, Nicolai
Kelly, Luke A.
author_sort Kessler, Sarah E.
collection PubMed
description Measuring motion of the human foot presents a unique challenge due to the large number of closely packed bones with congruent articulating surfaces. Optical motion capture (OMC) and multi-segment models can be used to infer foot motion, but might be affected by soft tissue artifact (STA). Biplanar videoradiography (BVR) is a relatively new tool that allows direct, non-invasive measurement of bone motion using high-speed, dynamic x-ray images to track individual bones. It is unknown whether OMC and BVR can be used interchangeably to analyse multi-segment foot motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the agreement in kinematic measures of dynamic activities. Nine healthy participants performed three walking and three running trials while BVR was recorded with synchronous OMC. Bone position and orientation was determined through manual scientific-rotoscoping. The OMC and BVR kinematics were co-registered to the same coordinate system, and BVR tracking was used to create virtual markers for comparison to OMC during dynamic trials. Root mean square (RMS) differences in marker positions and joint angles as well as a linear fit method (LFM) was used to compare the outputs of both methods. When comparing BVR and OMC, sagittal plane angles were in good agreement (ankle: R(2) = 0.947, 0.939; Medial Longitudinal Arch (MLA) Angle: R(2) = 0.713, 0.703, walking and running, respectively). When examining the ankle, there was a moderate agreement between the systems in the frontal plane (R(2) = 0.322, 0.452, walking and running, respectively), with a weak to moderate correlation for the transverse plane (R(2) = 0.178, 0.326, walking and running, respectively). However, root mean squared error (RMSE) showed angular errors ranging from 1.06 to 8.31° across the planes (frontal: 3.57°, 3.67°, transverse: 4.28°, 4.70°, sagittal: 2.45°, 2.67°, walking and running, respectively). Root mean square (RMS) differences between OMC and BVR marker trajectories were task dependent with the largest differences in the shank (6.0 ± 2.01 mm) for running, and metatarsals (3.97 ± 0.81 mm) for walking. Based on the results, we suggest BVR and OMC provide comparable solutions to foot motion in the sagittal plane, however, interpretations of out-of-plane movement should be made carefully.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6716496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67164962019-09-10 A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics Kessler, Sarah E. Rainbow, Michael J. Lichtwark, Glen A. Cresswell, Andrew G. D'Andrea, Susan E. Konow, Nicolai Kelly, Luke A. Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Measuring motion of the human foot presents a unique challenge due to the large number of closely packed bones with congruent articulating surfaces. Optical motion capture (OMC) and multi-segment models can be used to infer foot motion, but might be affected by soft tissue artifact (STA). Biplanar videoradiography (BVR) is a relatively new tool that allows direct, non-invasive measurement of bone motion using high-speed, dynamic x-ray images to track individual bones. It is unknown whether OMC and BVR can be used interchangeably to analyse multi-segment foot motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the agreement in kinematic measures of dynamic activities. Nine healthy participants performed three walking and three running trials while BVR was recorded with synchronous OMC. Bone position and orientation was determined through manual scientific-rotoscoping. The OMC and BVR kinematics were co-registered to the same coordinate system, and BVR tracking was used to create virtual markers for comparison to OMC during dynamic trials. Root mean square (RMS) differences in marker positions and joint angles as well as a linear fit method (LFM) was used to compare the outputs of both methods. When comparing BVR and OMC, sagittal plane angles were in good agreement (ankle: R(2) = 0.947, 0.939; Medial Longitudinal Arch (MLA) Angle: R(2) = 0.713, 0.703, walking and running, respectively). When examining the ankle, there was a moderate agreement between the systems in the frontal plane (R(2) = 0.322, 0.452, walking and running, respectively), with a weak to moderate correlation for the transverse plane (R(2) = 0.178, 0.326, walking and running, respectively). However, root mean squared error (RMSE) showed angular errors ranging from 1.06 to 8.31° across the planes (frontal: 3.57°, 3.67°, transverse: 4.28°, 4.70°, sagittal: 2.45°, 2.67°, walking and running, respectively). Root mean square (RMS) differences between OMC and BVR marker trajectories were task dependent with the largest differences in the shank (6.0 ± 2.01 mm) for running, and metatarsals (3.97 ± 0.81 mm) for walking. Based on the results, we suggest BVR and OMC provide comparable solutions to foot motion in the sagittal plane, however, interpretations of out-of-plane movement should be made carefully. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6716496/ /pubmed/31508415 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00199 Text en Copyright © 2019 Kessler, Rainbow, Lichtwark, Cresswell, D'Andrea, Konow and Kelly. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Kessler, Sarah E.
Rainbow, Michael J.
Lichtwark, Glen A.
Cresswell, Andrew G.
D'Andrea, Susan E.
Konow, Nicolai
Kelly, Luke A.
A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title_full A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title_fullStr A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title_full_unstemmed A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title_short A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics
title_sort direct comparison of biplanar videoradiography and optical motion capture for foot and ankle kinematics
topic Bioengineering and Biotechnology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31508415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00199
work_keys_str_mv AT kesslersarahe adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT rainbowmichaelj adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT lichtwarkglena adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT cresswellandrewg adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT dandreasusane adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT konownicolai adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT kellylukea adirectcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT kesslersarahe directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT rainbowmichaelj directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT lichtwarkglena directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT cresswellandrewg directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT dandreasusane directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT konownicolai directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics
AT kellylukea directcomparisonofbiplanarvideoradiographyandopticalmotioncaptureforfootandanklekinematics