Anatomical frame identification and reconstruction for repeatable lower limb joint kinematics estimates.

The quantitative description of joint mechanics during movement requires the reconstruction of the position and orientation of selected anatomical axes with respect to a laboratory reference frame. These anatomical axes are identified through an ad hoc anatomical calibration procedure and their position and orientation are reconstructed relative to bone-embedded frames normally derived from photogrammetric marker positions and used to describe movement. The repeatability of anatomical calibration, both within and between subjects, is crucial for kinematic and kinetic end results. This paper illustrates an anatomical calibration approach, which does not require anatomical landmark manual palpation, described in the literature to be prone to great indeterminacy. This approach allows for the estimate of subject-specific bone morphology and automatic anatomical frame identification. The experimental procedure consists of digitization through photogrammetry of superficial points selected over the areas of the bone covered with a thin layer of soft tissue. Information concerning the location of internal anatomical landmarks, such as a joint center obtained using a functional approach, may also be added. The data thus acquired are matched with the digital model of a deformable template bone. Consequently, the repeatability of pelvis, knee and hip joint angles is determined. Five volunteers, each of whom performed five walking trials, and six operators, with no specific knowledge of anatomy, participated in the study. Descriptive statistics analysis was performed during upright posture, showing a limited dispersion of all angles (less than 3 deg) except for hip and knee internal-external rotation (6 deg and 9 deg, respectively). During level walking, the ratio of inter-operator and inter-trial error and an absolute subject-specific repeatability were assessed. For pelvic and hip angles, and knee flexion-extension the inter-operator error was equal to the inter-trial error-the absolute error ranging from 0.1 deg to 0.9 deg. Knee internal-external rotation and ab-adduction showed, on average, inter-operator errors, which were 8% and 28% greater than the relevant inter-trial errors, respectively. The absolute error was in the range 0.9-2.9 deg.

[1]  S. Jan Color Atlas of Skeletal landmark definitions. Guidelines for reproducible manual and virtual palpations. , 2007 .

[2]  I. Charlton,et al.  Repeatability of an optimised lower body model. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[3]  A Leardini,et al.  Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. , 1995, Clinical biomechanics.

[4]  M P Kadaba,et al.  On the estimation of joint kinematics during gait. , 1991, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  James G Wright,et al.  Pro: Interobserver Variability of Gait Analysis , 2003 .

[6]  Sahan Gamage,et al.  New least squares solutions for estimating the average centre of rotation and the axis of rotation. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  R Baker,et al.  Pelvic angles: a mathematically rigorous definition which is consistent with a conventional clinical understanding of the terms. , 2001, Gait & posture.

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

[9]  Lorenzo Chiari,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 4: assessment of anatomical landmark misplacement and its effects on joint kinematics. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[10]  H J Sommer,et al.  A three-dimensional musculoskeletal database for the lower extremities. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  R. B. Davis,et al.  A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique , 1991 .

[12]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Pelvis and lower limb anatomical landmark calibration precision and its propagation to bone geometry and joint angles , 1999, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[13]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  Gait analysis methodology , 1984 .

[14]  A Cappello,et al.  Effects of hip joint centre mislocation on gait analysis results. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  U.D. Croce,et al.  Surface-marker cluster design criteria for 3-D bone movement reconstruction , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  Kjartan Halvorsen,et al.  Bias compensated least squares estimate of the center of rotation. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  An optimized protocol for hip joint centre determination using the functional method. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  Suzanne Halliday,et al.  Interobserver Variability of Gait Analysis in Patients With Cerebral Palsy , 2003, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[19]  James R. Gage,et al.  Con: Interobserver Variability of Gait Analysis , 2003 .

[20]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[21]  Tony DeRose,et al.  Surface reconstruction from unorganized points , 1992, SIGGRAPH.

[22]  Joyce P Trost,et al.  Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[23]  D A Winter,et al.  A three-dimensional musculoskeletal model for gait analysis. Anatomical variability estimates. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  E S Grood,et al.  A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. , 1983, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[25]  A McPherson,et al.  Imaging knee position using MRI, RSA/CT and 3D digitisation. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[26]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  Enhanced anatomical calibration in human movement analysis. , 2007, Gait & posture.