Author
Listed:
- John Cockcroft
- Quinette Louw
- Richard Baker
Abstract
A primary source of measurement error in gait analysis is soft-tissue artefact. Hip and knee angle measurements, regularly used in clinical decision-making, are particularly prone to pervasive soft tissue on the femur. However, despite several studies of thigh marker artefact it remains unclear how lateral thigh marker height affects results using variants of the Conventional Gait Model. We compared Vicon Plug-in Gait hip and knee angle estimates during gait using a proximal and distal thigh marker placement for ten healthy subjects. Knee axes were estimated by optimizing thigh rotation offsets to minimize knee varus-valgus range during gait. Relative to the distal marker, the proximal marker produced 37% less varus-valgus range and 50% less hip rotation range (p < 0.001), suggesting that it produced less soft-tissue artefact in knee axis estimates. The thigh markers also produced different secondary effects on the knee centre estimate. Using whole gait cycle optimization, the distal marker showed greater minimum and maximum knee flexion (by 6° and 2° respectively) resulting in a 4° reduction in range. Mid-stance optimization reduced distal marker knee flexion by 5° throughout, but proximal marker results were negligibly affected. Based on an analysis of the Plug-in Gait knee axis definition, we show that the proximal marker reduced sensitivity to soft-tissue artefact by decreasing collinearity between the points defining the femoral frontal plane and reducing anteroposterior movement between the knee and thigh markers. This study suggests that a proximal thigh marker may be preferable when performing gait analysis using the Plug-in Gait model.
Suggested Citation
John Cockcroft & Quinette Louw & Richard Baker, 2016.
"Proximal placement of lateral thigh skin markers reduces soft tissue artefact during normal gait using the Conventional Gait Model,"
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(14), pages 1497-1504, October.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:19:y:2016:i:14:p:1497-1504
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2016.1157865
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:19:y:2016:i:14:p:1497-1504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.