Hindfoot kinematics and kinetics - A combined in vivo and in silico analysis approach.

4D CT Articular joint mechanics Foot-ankle complex Hindfoot Subtalar joint Talocrural joint

Journal

Gait & posture
ISSN: 1879-2219
Titre abrégé: Gait Posture
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9416830

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 01 12 2023
revised: 13 03 2024
accepted: 23 04 2024
medline: 10 5 2024
pubmed: 10 5 2024
entrez: 9 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The complex anatomical structure of the foot-ankle imposes challenges to accurately quantify detailed hindfoot kinematics and estimate musculoskeletal loading parameters. Most systems used to capture or estimate dynamic joint function oversimplify the anatomical structure by reducing its complexity. Can four dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) imaging in combination with an innovative foot manipulator capture in vivo hindfoot kinematics during a simulated stance phase of walking and can talocrural and subtalar articular joint mechanics be estimated based on a detailed in silico musculoskeletal foot-ankle model. A foot manipulator imposed plantar/dorsiflexion and inversion/eversion representing a healthy stance phase of gait in 12 healthy participants while simultaneously acquiring 4D CT images. Participant-specific 3D hindfoot rotations and translations were calculated based on bone-specific anatomical coordinate systems. Articular cartilage contact area and contact pressure of the talocrural and subtalar joints were estimated using an extended foot-ankle model updated with an elastic foundation contact model upon prescribing the participant-specific rotations measured in the 4D CT measurement. Plantar/dorsiflexion predominantly occurred at the talocrural joint (RoM 15.9±3.9°), while inversion/eversion (RoM 5.9±3.9°) occurred mostly at the subtalar joint, with the contact area being larger at the subtalar than at the talocrural joint. Contact pressure was evenly distributed between the talocrural and subtalar joint at the beginning of the simulated stance phase but was then redistributed from the talocrural to the subtalar joint with increasing dorsiflexion. In a clinical case study, the healthy participants were compared with four patients after surgically treaded intra-articular calcaneal fracture. The proposed workflow was able to detect small but meaningful differences in hindfoot kinematics and kinetics, indicative of remaining hindfoot pathomechanics that may influence the onset and progression of degenerative joint diseases.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The complex anatomical structure of the foot-ankle imposes challenges to accurately quantify detailed hindfoot kinematics and estimate musculoskeletal loading parameters. Most systems used to capture or estimate dynamic joint function oversimplify the anatomical structure by reducing its complexity.
RESEARCH QUESTION OBJECTIVE
Can four dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) imaging in combination with an innovative foot manipulator capture in vivo hindfoot kinematics during a simulated stance phase of walking and can talocrural and subtalar articular joint mechanics be estimated based on a detailed in silico musculoskeletal foot-ankle model.
METHODS METHODS
A foot manipulator imposed plantar/dorsiflexion and inversion/eversion representing a healthy stance phase of gait in 12 healthy participants while simultaneously acquiring 4D CT images. Participant-specific 3D hindfoot rotations and translations were calculated based on bone-specific anatomical coordinate systems. Articular cartilage contact area and contact pressure of the talocrural and subtalar joints were estimated using an extended foot-ankle model updated with an elastic foundation contact model upon prescribing the participant-specific rotations measured in the 4D CT measurement.
RESULTS RESULTS
Plantar/dorsiflexion predominantly occurred at the talocrural joint (RoM 15.9±3.9°), while inversion/eversion (RoM 5.9±3.9°) occurred mostly at the subtalar joint, with the contact area being larger at the subtalar than at the talocrural joint. Contact pressure was evenly distributed between the talocrural and subtalar joint at the beginning of the simulated stance phase but was then redistributed from the talocrural to the subtalar joint with increasing dorsiflexion.
SIGNIFICANCE CONCLUSIONS
In a clinical case study, the healthy participants were compared with four patients after surgically treaded intra-articular calcaneal fracture. The proposed workflow was able to detect small but meaningful differences in hindfoot kinematics and kinetics, indicative of remaining hindfoot pathomechanics that may influence the onset and progression of degenerative joint diseases.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38723393
pii: S0966-6362(24)00119-X
doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.04.023
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

8-15

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Barbara Postolka reports financial support was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation [grant number 500PM 214210]. Hannelore Boey reports financial support was provided by the Research Foundation Flanders [grant number 1S36519N]. Jos Vander Sloten & Ilse Jonkers report financial support was provided by the Berghmans-Dereymaeker research chair on Foot & Ankle Biomechanics. The other authors declare to have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Barbara Postolka (B)

KU Leuven, Department of Movement Sciences, Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Tervuursevest 101, Leuven 3001, Belgium. Electronic address: barbara.postolka@kuleuven.be.

Bryce A Killen (BA)

KU Leuven, Department of Movement Sciences, Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Tervuursevest 101, Leuven 3001, Belgium.

Hannelore Boey (H)

KU Leuven, Department of Movement Sciences, Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Tervuursevest 101, Leuven 3001, Belgium; KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Biomechanics Section, Celestijnenlaan 300C, Leuven 3001, Belgium.

Tiago M Malaquias (TM)

KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Biomechanics Section, Celestijnenlaan 300C, Leuven 3001, Belgium.

Tassos Natsakis (T)

KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Biomechanics Section, Celestijnenlaan 300C, Leuven 3001, Belgium; Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Department of Automation, Dorobantilor 71-73, Cluj-Napoca 400268, Romania.

Stefan Clockaerts (S)

Holy Heart Hospital Lier, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Mechelsesteenweg 24, Lier 2500, Belgium.

Dominique Misselyn (D)

UZ Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium.

Walter Coudyzer (W)

UZ Leuven, Radiology, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium.

Jos Vander Sloten (J)

KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Biomechanics Section, Celestijnenlaan 300C, Leuven 3001, Belgium.

Ilse Jonkers (I)

KU Leuven, Department of Movement Sciences, Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Tervuursevest 101, Leuven 3001, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH