How reliable are femoropelvic kinematics during deep squats? The influence of subject-specific skeletal modelling on measurement variability.
Biplanar radiography
Deep squats
Femoropelvic joint angles
Kinematic variability
Subject-specific modelling
Journal
Gait & posture
ISSN: 1879-2219
Titre abrégé: Gait Posture
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9416830
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
received:
07
11
2023
revised:
12
04
2024
accepted:
06
05
2024
medline:
19
5
2024
pubmed:
19
5
2024
entrez:
18
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Biplanar radiography displays promising results in the production of subject-specific (S.specific) biomechanical models. However, the focus has predominantly centred on methodological investigations in gait analysis. Exploring the influence of such models on the analysis of high range of motion tasks linked to hip pathologies is warranted. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of S.Specific modelling techniques on the reliability of deep squats kinematics in comparison to generic modelling. 8 able-bodied male participants attended 5 motion capture sessions conducted by 3 observers and performed 5 deep squats in each. Prior to each session a biplanar scan was acquired with the reflective-markers attached. Inverse kinematics of pelvis and thigh segments were calculated based on S.specific and Generic model definition. Agreement between the two models femoropelvic orientation in standing was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and paired t- tests. Inter-trial, inter-session, inter-observer variability and observer/trial difference and ratio were calculated for squat kinematic data derived from the two modelling approaches. Compared to the Generic model, the S.Specific model produced a calibration trial that is significantly offset into more posterior pelvis tilt (-2.8±2.7), hip extension (-2.2±3.8), hip abduction (-1.2±3.6) and external rotation (-13.8±11.4). The S.specific model produced significantly different squat kinematics in the sagittal plane of the pelvis (entire squat cycle) and hip (between 40 % and 60 % of the squat cycle). Variability analysis indicated that the error magnitude between the two models was comparable (difference<2°). The S.specific model exhibited a lower variability in the observer/trial ratio in the sagittal pelvis and hip, the frontal hip, but showed a higher variability in the transverse hip. S.specific modelling appears to introduce a calibration offset that primarily translates into an effect in the sagittal plane kinematics. However, the clinical added value of S.specific modelling in terms of reducing experimental sources of kinematic variability was limited.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Biplanar radiography displays promising results in the production of subject-specific (S.specific) biomechanical models. However, the focus has predominantly centred on methodological investigations in gait analysis. Exploring the influence of such models on the analysis of high range of motion tasks linked to hip pathologies is warranted. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of S.Specific modelling techniques on the reliability of deep squats kinematics in comparison to generic modelling.
METHODS
METHODS
8 able-bodied male participants attended 5 motion capture sessions conducted by 3 observers and performed 5 deep squats in each. Prior to each session a biplanar scan was acquired with the reflective-markers attached. Inverse kinematics of pelvis and thigh segments were calculated based on S.specific and Generic model definition. Agreement between the two models femoropelvic orientation in standing was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and paired t- tests. Inter-trial, inter-session, inter-observer variability and observer/trial difference and ratio were calculated for squat kinematic data derived from the two modelling approaches.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Compared to the Generic model, the S.Specific model produced a calibration trial that is significantly offset into more posterior pelvis tilt (-2.8±2.7), hip extension (-2.2±3.8), hip abduction (-1.2±3.6) and external rotation (-13.8±11.4). The S.specific model produced significantly different squat kinematics in the sagittal plane of the pelvis (entire squat cycle) and hip (between 40 % and 60 % of the squat cycle). Variability analysis indicated that the error magnitude between the two models was comparable (difference<2°). The S.specific model exhibited a lower variability in the observer/trial ratio in the sagittal pelvis and hip, the frontal hip, but showed a higher variability in the transverse hip.
SIGNIFICANCE
CONCLUSIONS
S.specific modelling appears to introduce a calibration offset that primarily translates into an effect in the sagittal plane kinematics. However, the clinical added value of S.specific modelling in terms of reducing experimental sources of kinematic variability was limited.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38761585
pii: S0966-6362(24)00142-5
doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.05.006
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120-127Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.