Cargando…

Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models

BACKGROUND: Multi-segment foot models (MFMs) for assessing three-dimensional segmental foot motions are calculated via various analytical methods. Although validation studies have already been conducted, we cannot compare their results because the experimental environments in previous studies were d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yoo, Hyo Jeong, Park, Hye Sun, Lee, Dong-Oh, Kim, Seong Hyun, Park, Gil Young, Cho, Tae-Joon, Lee, Dong Yeon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8734222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34991669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00508-1
_version_ 1784627971697410048
author Yoo, Hyo Jeong
Park, Hye Sun
Lee, Dong-Oh
Kim, Seong Hyun
Park, Gil Young
Cho, Tae-Joon
Lee, Dong Yeon
author_facet Yoo, Hyo Jeong
Park, Hye Sun
Lee, Dong-Oh
Kim, Seong Hyun
Park, Gil Young
Cho, Tae-Joon
Lee, Dong Yeon
author_sort Yoo, Hyo Jeong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Multi-segment foot models (MFMs) for assessing three-dimensional segmental foot motions are calculated via various analytical methods. Although validation studies have already been conducted, we cannot compare their results because the experimental environments in previous studies were different from each other. This study aims to compare the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five MFMs in the same experimental conditions. METHODS: Eleven healthy males with a mean age of 26.5 years participated in this study. We created a merged 29-marker set including five MFMs: Oxford (OFM), modified Rizzoli (mRFM), DuPont (DFM), Milwaukee (MiFM), and modified Shriners Hospital for Children Greenville (mSHCG). Two operators applied the merged model to participants twice, and then we analysed two relative angles of three segments: shank-hindfoot (HF) and hindfoot-forefoot (FF). Coefficients of multiple correlation (CMC) and mean standard errors were used to assess repeatability and reproducibility, and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) of the t-value was employed to compare kinematics. RESULTS: HF varus/valgus of the MiFM and mSHCG models, which rotated the segment according to radiographic or goniometric measurements during the reference frame construction, were significantly more repeatable and reproducible, compared to other models. They showed significantly more dorsiflexed HF and plantarflexed FF due to their static offset angles. DFM and mSHCG showed a greater range of motion (ROM), and some models had significantly different FF points of peak angle. CONCLUSIONS: Under the same conditions, rotating the segment according to the appropriate offset angle obtained from radiographic or goniometric measurement increased reliability, but all MFMs had clinically acceptable reliability compared to previous studies. Moreover, in some models, especially HF varus/valgus, there were differences in ROM and points of peak angle even with no statistical difference in SPM curves. Therefore, based on the results of this study, clinicians and researchers involved in the evaluation of foot and ankle dysfunction need an understanding of the specific features of each MFM to make accurate decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00508-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8734222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87342222022-01-07 Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models Yoo, Hyo Jeong Park, Hye Sun Lee, Dong-Oh Kim, Seong Hyun Park, Gil Young Cho, Tae-Joon Lee, Dong Yeon J Foot Ankle Res Research BACKGROUND: Multi-segment foot models (MFMs) for assessing three-dimensional segmental foot motions are calculated via various analytical methods. Although validation studies have already been conducted, we cannot compare their results because the experimental environments in previous studies were different from each other. This study aims to compare the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five MFMs in the same experimental conditions. METHODS: Eleven healthy males with a mean age of 26.5 years participated in this study. We created a merged 29-marker set including five MFMs: Oxford (OFM), modified Rizzoli (mRFM), DuPont (DFM), Milwaukee (MiFM), and modified Shriners Hospital for Children Greenville (mSHCG). Two operators applied the merged model to participants twice, and then we analysed two relative angles of three segments: shank-hindfoot (HF) and hindfoot-forefoot (FF). Coefficients of multiple correlation (CMC) and mean standard errors were used to assess repeatability and reproducibility, and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) of the t-value was employed to compare kinematics. RESULTS: HF varus/valgus of the MiFM and mSHCG models, which rotated the segment according to radiographic or goniometric measurements during the reference frame construction, were significantly more repeatable and reproducible, compared to other models. They showed significantly more dorsiflexed HF and plantarflexed FF due to their static offset angles. DFM and mSHCG showed a greater range of motion (ROM), and some models had significantly different FF points of peak angle. CONCLUSIONS: Under the same conditions, rotating the segment according to the appropriate offset angle obtained from radiographic or goniometric measurement increased reliability, but all MFMs had clinically acceptable reliability compared to previous studies. Moreover, in some models, especially HF varus/valgus, there were differences in ROM and points of peak angle even with no statistical difference in SPM curves. Therefore, based on the results of this study, clinicians and researchers involved in the evaluation of foot and ankle dysfunction need an understanding of the specific features of each MFM to make accurate decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00508-1. BioMed Central 2022-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8734222/ /pubmed/34991669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00508-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Yoo, Hyo Jeong
Park, Hye Sun
Lee, Dong-Oh
Kim, Seong Hyun
Park, Gil Young
Cho, Tae-Joon
Lee, Dong Yeon
Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title_full Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title_fullStr Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title_short Comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
title_sort comparison of the kinematics, repeatability, and reproducibility of five different multi-segment foot models
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8734222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34991669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00508-1
work_keys_str_mv AT yoohyojeong comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT parkhyesun comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT leedongoh comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT kimseonghyun comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT parkgilyoung comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT chotaejoon comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels
AT leedongyeon comparisonofthekinematicsrepeatabilityandreproducibilityoffivedifferentmultisegmentfootmodels