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 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: R2 = 0.947, 0.939; Medial Longitudinal Arch (MLA) Angle: R2 = 0.713, 0.703, walking and running, respectively). When examining the ankle, there was a moderate agreement between the systems in the frontal plane (R2 = 0.322, 0.452, walking and running, respectively), with a weak to moderate correlation for the transverse plane (R2 = 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.

[1]  Anthony G Schache,et al.  Non-invasive assessment of soft-tissue artifact and its effect on knee joint kinematics during functional activity. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  A Leardini,et al.  Repeatability of a multi-segment foot protocol in adult subjects. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[3]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of kinematic data. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  P J Taylor,et al.  Influence of the helical and six available Cardan sequences on 3D ankle joint kinematic parameters , 2012, Sports biomechanics.

[5]  C J Nester,et al.  In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  Joseph J Crisco,et al.  Static and dynamic error of a biplanar videoradiography system using marker-based and markerless tracking techniques. , 2011, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[7]  Rita Stagni,et al.  Effect of calibration error on bone tracking accuracy with fluoroscopy. , 2014, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[8]  Susan Greener,et al.  Business Research Methods , 2008 .

[9]  M. Mukaka,et al.  Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. , 2012, Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi.

[10]  S I Wolf,et al.  The Heidelberg foot measurement method: development, description and assessment. , 2006, Gait & posture.

[11]  P. Pidcoe,et al.  Repeatability of the modified Oxford foot model during gait in healthy adults. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[12]  Scott Tashman,et al.  In-vivo measurement of dynamic joint motion using high speed biplane radiography and CT: application to canine ACL deficiency. , 2003, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[13]  Scott C Wearing,et al.  Bulk compressive properties of the heel fat pad during walking: a pilot investigation in plantar heel pain. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  Dustin A. Bruening,et al.  Analysis of a kinetic multi-segment foot model. Part I: Model repeatability and kinematic validity. , 2012, Gait & posture.

[15]  Salim Ghoussayni,et al.  Assessment and validation of a simple automated method for the detection of gait events and intervals. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[16]  David B Baier,et al.  Scientific rotoscoping: a morphology-based method of 3-D motion analysis and visualization. , 2010, Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological genetics and physiology.

[17]  Dan K Ramsey,et al.  Effect of skin movement artifact on knee kinematics during gait and cutting motions measured in vivo. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[18]  Elizabeth L Brainerd,et al.  Validation of XMALab software for marker-based XROMM , 2016, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[19]  I Söderkvist,et al.  Determining the movements of the skeleton using well-configured markers. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  Paul J Taylor,et al.  The Appropriateness of the Helical Axis Technique and Six Available Cardan Sequences for the Representation of 3-D Lead Leg Kinematics During the Fencing Lunge , 2013, Journal of human kinetics.

[21]  Joseph J Crisco,et al.  Kinematic differences between optical motion capture and biplanar videoradiography during a jump-cut maneuver. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[22]  Scott Tashman,et al.  Validation of three-dimensional model-based tibio-femoral tracking during running. , 2009, Medical engineering & physics.

[23]  T. Theologis,et al.  Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. , 2006, Gait & posture.

[24]  A. Leardini,et al.  Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[25]  A Leardini,et al.  An anatomically based protocol for the description of foot segment kinematics during gait. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

[26]  Eric C Honert,et al.  Ankle and foot power in gait analysis: Implications for science, technology and clinical assessment. , 2018, Journal of biomechanics.

[27]  A. Cereatti,et al.  Assessment of Waveform Similarity in Clinical Gait Data: The Linear Fit Method , 2014, BioMed research international.

[28]  P Lundgren,et al.  Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[29]  D. B. Baier,et al.  X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM): precision, accuracy and applications in comparative biomechanics research. , 2010, Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological genetics and physiology.

[30]  P. Aerts,et al.  The mechanical characteristics of the human heel pad during foot strike in running: an in vivo cineradiographic study. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  William R Ledoux,et al.  Marker-based validation of a biplane fluoroscopy system for quantifying foot kinematics. , 2014, Medical engineering & physics.

[32]  K. Meijer,et al.  The Glasgow-Maastricht foot model, evaluation of a 26 segment kinematic model of the foot , 2016, Journal of Foot and Ankle Research.

[33]  Dan K Ramsey,et al.  Methodological concerns using intra-cortical pins to measure tibiofemoral kinematics , 2003, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[34]  G. Lichtwark,et al.  Intrinsic foot muscles have the capacity to control deformation of the longitudinal arch , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.