advertising
-
1
Barton CJ, Menz HB, Levinger P, et al: Greater peak rearfoot eversion predicts foot orthoses efficacy in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Br J Sports Med 45: 697, 2011.
-
2
Richter RR, Austin TM, Reinking MF: Foot orthoses in lower limb overuse conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis: critical appraisal and commentary. J Athl Train 46: 103, 2011.
-
3
Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Catani F, et al: An anatomically based protocol for the description of foot segment kinematics during gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 14: 528, 1999.
-
4
Carson MC, Harrington ME, Thompson N, et al: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech 34: 1299, 2001.
-
5
Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Berti L, et al: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture 25: 453, 2007.
-
6
Nester C, Jones RK, Liu A, et al: Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers. J Biomech 40: 3412, 2007.
-
7
Barn R, Rafferty D, Turner DE, et al: Reliability study of tibialis posterior and selected leg muscle EMG and multi-segment foot kinematics in rheumatoid arthritis associated pes planovalgus. Gait Posture 36: 567, 2012.
-
8
Okita N, Meyers SA, Challis JH, et al: An objective evaluation of a segmented foot model. Gait Posture 30: 27, 2009.
-
9
Ferber R, Benson B: Changes in multi-segment foot biomechanics with a heat-mouldable semi-custom foot orthotic device. J Foot Ankle Res 4: 2011.
-
10
Barton CJ, Levinger P, Crossley KM, et al: Relationships between the foot posture index and foot kinematics during gait in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Foot Ankle Res 4: 10, 2011.
-
11
Lundgren P, Nester C, Liu A, et al: Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture 28: 93, 2008.
-
12
Manal K, Mcclay I, Stanhope S, et al: Comparison of surface mounted markers and attachment methods in estimating tibial rotations during walking: an in vivo study. Gait Posture 11: 38, 2000.
-
13
Bishop C, Paul G, Thewlis D: The reliability, accuracy and minimal detectable difference of a multi-segment kinematic model of the foot-shoe complex. Gait Posture 37: 552, 2013.
-
14
Williams DS III, Mcclay Davis I, Baitch SP: Effect of inverted orthoses on lower-extremity mechanics in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 2060, 2003.
-
15
Souza TR, Pinto RZ, Trede RG, et al: Temporal couplings between rearfoot-shank complex and hip joint during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25: 745, 2010.
-
16
Houck JR, Tome JM, Nawoczenski DA: Subtalar neutral position as an offset for a kinematic model of the foot during walking. Gait Posture 28: 29, 2008.
-
17
Souza TR, Pinto RZ, Trede RG, et al: Late rearfoot eversion and lower-limb internal rotation caused by changes in the interaction between forefoot and support surface. JAPMA 99: 503, 2009.
-
18
Neumann DA: “Ankle and Foot,” in Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations for Physical Rehabilitation, Vol 1, edited by DA Neumann, p 477, Mosby, St. Louis, MO, 2002.
-
19
Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, et al: Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19: 162, 1994.
-
20
Cole GK, Nigg BM, Ronsky JL, et al: Application of the joint coordinate system to three-dimensional joint attitude and movement representation: a standardization proposal. J Biomech Eng 115: 344, 1993.
-
21
Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH: Clinical Biomechanics: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles, 1977.
-
22
Michaud TC: Foot Orthoses and Other Forms of Conservative Foot Care, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1993.
-
23
Winter DA: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, Vol 3, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005.
-
24
Hreljac A, Marshall RN: Algorithms to determine event timing during normal walking using kinematic data. J Biomech 33: 783, 2000.
-
25
Portney LG, Watkins MP: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, Vol 2, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000.
-
26
Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, et al: Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res 7: 849, 1989.
-
27
Della Croce U, Leardini A, Chiari L, et al: Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 4: assessment of anatomical landmark misplacement and its effects on joint kinematics. Gait Posture 21: 226, 2005.
-
28
Deschamps K, Staes F, Roosen P, et al: Body of evidence supporting the clinical use of 3D multisegment foot models: a systematic review. Gait Posture 33: 338, 2011.
-
29
Gadotti IC, Vieira ER, Magee DJ: Importance and clarification of measurement properties in rehabilitation. Rev Bras Fisioter 10: 137, 2006.
Between-Day Reliability of a Cluster-Based Method for Multisegment Kinematic Analysis of the Foot-Ankle Complex
Search for other papers by Thales R. Souza in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Haroldo L. Fonseca in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ana Carolina A. Vaz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Juliana S. Antero in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cristiano S. Marinho in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sérgio T. Fonseca in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
Detailed description of foot pronation-supination requires multisegment evaluation of the kinematics of the foot-ankle complex. There are noninvasive methods with independent (single) tracking markers attached directly to the skin. However, these methods are inconsistent with the usual rigid segments assumption. In contrast, using clustered markers is compatible with this assumption and is necessary for analyses that need tracking markers to be distant from the foot (eg, shod walking). This study investigated the between-day reliability of a cluster-based method for multisegment analysis of foot-ankle angles related to pronation-supination.
Methods
Ten healthy adults participated in the study. An anatomically based, three-dimensional model comprising the shank, calcaneus, and forefoot was created. Rigid clusters of tracking markers were used to determine the relative positions and motions of the segments. Mean positions were measured with the subtalar joint in neutral position during standing. Furthermore, mean angles, peaks, and timings of peaks were measured during the stance phase of walking. All of the variables were measured twice, with a 1-week interval. To evaluate reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for discrete variables and coefficients of multiple correlation for entire gait curves.
Results
Intraclass correlation coefficients varied from 0.8 to 0.93 for the angles obtained when the subtalar joint was in neutral and from 0.76 to 0.9 for walking variables. Coefficients of multiple correlation varied from 0.93 to 0.97 for walking curves.
Conclusions
The method described has good to high reliability and provides a systematic method for multisegment kinematic evaluation of foot-ankle pronation-supination.
advertising
