Background: Foot and ankle joint kinematics are measured during clinical gait analyses with marker-based multi-segment foot models. To improve on existing models, measurement errors due to soft tissue artifacts (STAs) and marker misplacements should be reduced. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define a clinically informed, universally applicable multi-segment foot model, which is developed to minimize these measurement errors. Methods: The Amsterdam foot model (AFM) is a follow-up of existing multi-segment foot models. It was developed by consulting a clinical expert panel and optimizing marker locations and segment definitions to minimize measurement errors. Evaluation of the model was performed in three steps. First, kinematic errors due to STAs were evaluated and compared to two frequently used foot models, i.e. the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models (OFM, RFM). Previously collected computed tomography data was used of 15 asymptomatic feet with markers attached, to determine the joint angles with and without STAs taken into account. Second, the sensitivity to marker misplacements was determined for AFM and compared to OFM and RFM using static standing trials of 19 asymptomatic subjects in which each marker was virtually replaced in multiple directions. Third, a preliminary inter- and intra-tester repeatability analysis was performed by acquiring 3D gait analysis data of 15 healthy subjects, who were equipped by two testers for two sessions. Repeatability of all kinematic parameters was assessed through analysis of the standard deviation (σ) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results: The AFM was defined and all calculation methods were provided. Errors in joint angles due to STAs were in general similar or smaller in AFM (≤2.9°) compared to OFM (≤4.0°) and RFM (≤6.7°). AFM was also more robust to marker misplacement than OFM and RFM, as a large sensitivity of kinematic parameters to marker misplacement (i.e. > 1.0°/mm) was found only two times for AFM as opposed to six times for OFM and five times for RFM. The average intra-tester repeatability of AFM angles was σ:2.2[0.9°], SEM:3.3 ± 0.9° and the inter-tester repeatability was σ:3.1[2.1°], SEM:5.2 ± 2.3°. Conclusions: Measurement errors of AFM are smaller compared to two widely-used multi-segment foot models. This qualifies AFM as a follow-up to existing foot models, which should be evaluated further in a range of clinical application areas.@en

Computed tomography (CT) imaging can be used to determine bone pose, sometimes combined with skin-mounted markers. For this specific application, a lower radiation dose than the conventional clinical dose might suffice. This study aims to determine how lowering the radiation dose of a CT-scan of the ankle and foot affects the precision of detecting bone pose and marker position. Radiation dose is proportional to tube charge. Hence, an adult cadaveric leg was scanned 10 times at four different tube charges (150, 75, 50 and 20 mAs) with a Philips Brilliance 64 CT scanner. Precision of detecting bone and marker position at 50 mAs was not significantly different from 75 mAs and from the clinically used 150 mAs, but higher than 20 mAs. Furthermore, no differences of the precision in detecting bone orientation were found. These results indicate that the radiation dose can be reduced by a factor 3 compared to the clinically usual radiation dose, without affecting the precision of detecting bone pose and marker position in the foot and ankle.@en

Additional fixation of the palmar scapholunate interosseous ligament has been advocated to improve the long-term results of dorsal scapholunate interosseous ligament reconstruction. To investigate the validity of this approach, we determined normal scapholunate motion patterns and calculated the location of the scapholunate rotation axis. We hypothesized that the optimal location of the scapholunate interosseous ligament insertion could be determined from the scapholunate rotation axis. Four-dimensional computerized tomography was used to study the wrist motion in 21 healthy participants. During flexion–extension motions, the scaphoid rotates 38° (SD 0.6°) relative to the lunate; the rotation axis intersects the dorsal ridge of the proximal pole of the scaphoid and the dorsal ridge of the lunate. Minimal scapholunate motion is present during radioulnar deviation. Since the scapholunate rotation axis runs through the dorsal proximal pole of the scaphoid, this is probably the optimal location for attaching the scapholunate ligament during reconstructive surgery.@en

Movement of skin markers with respect to their underlying bone (i.e. soft tissue artifacts (STAs)) might corrupt the accuracy of marker-based movement analyses. This study aims to quantify STAs in 3D for foot markers and their effect on multi-segment foot kinematics as calculated by the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models (OFM, RFM). Fifteen subjects with asymptomatic feet were seated on a custom-made loading device on a computed tomography (CT) table, with a combined OFM and RFM marker set on their right foot. One unloaded reference CT-scan with neutral foot position was performed, followed by 9 loaded CT-scans at different foot positions. The 3D-displacement (i.e. STA) of each marker in the underlying bone coordinate system between the reference scan and other scans was calculated. Subsequently, segment orientations and joint angles were calculated from the marker positions according to OFM and RFM definitions with and without STAs. The differences in degrees were defined as the errors caused by the marker displacements. Markers on the lateral malleolus and proximally on the posterior aspect of the calcaneus showed the largest STAs. The hindfoot-shank joint angle was most affected by STAs in the most extreme foot position (40° plantar flexion) in the sagittal plane for RFM (mean: 6.7°, max: 11.8°) and the transverse plane for OFM (mean: 3.9°, max: 6.8°). This study showed that STAs introduce clinically relevant errors in multi-segment foot kinematics. Moreover, it identified marker locations that are most affected by STAs, suggesting that their use within multi-segment foot models should be reconsidered.@en

A rigid surface–volume registration scheme is presented in this study to register computed tomography (CT) and free-hand tracked ultrasound (US) images of the talocrural joint. Prior to registration, bone surfaces expected to be visible in US are extracted from the CT volume and bone contours in 2D US data are enhanced based on monogenic signal representation of 2D US images. A 3D monogenic signal data is reconstructed from the 2D data using the position of the US probe recorded with an optical tracking system. When registering the surface extracted from the CT scan to the monogenic signal feature volume, six transformation parameters are estimated so as to optimize the sum of monogenic signal features over the transformed surface. The robustness of the registration algorithm was tested on a dataset collected from 12 cadaveric ankles. The proposed method was used in a clinical case study to investigate the potential of US imaging for pre-operative planning of arthroscopic access to talar (osteo)chondral defects (OCDs). The results suggest that registrations with a registration error of 2 mm and less is achievable, and US has the potential to be used in assessment of an OCD’ arthroscopic accessibility, given the fact that 51% of the talar surface could be visualized@en

Segment coordinate systems (CSs) of marker-based multi-segment foot models are used to measure foot kinematics, however their relationship to the underlying bony anatomy is barely studied. The aim of this study was to compare marker-based CSs (MCSs) with bone morphology-based CSs (BCSs) for the hindfoot and forefoot. Markers were placed on the right foot of fifteen healthy adults according to the Oxford, Rizzoli and Amsterdam Foot Model (OFM, RFM and AFM, respectively). A CT scan was made while the foot was loaded in a simulated weight-bearing device. BCSs were based on axes of inertia. The orientation difference between BCSs and MCSs was quantified in helical and 3D Euler angles. To determine whether the marker models were able to capture inter-subject variability in bone poses, linear regressions were performed. Compared to the hindfoot BCS, all MCSs were more toward plantar flexion and internal rotation, and RFM was also oriented toward more inversion. Compared to the forefoot BCS, OFM and RFM were oriented more toward dorsal and plantar flexion, respectively, and internal rotation, while AFM was not statistically different in the sagittal and transverse plane. In the frontal plane, OFM was more toward eversion and RFM and AFM more toward inversion compared to BCS. Inter-subject bone pose variability was captured with RFM and AFM in most planes of the hindfoot and forefoot, while this variability was not captured by OFM. When interpreting multi-segment foot model data it is important to realize that MCSs and BCSs do not always align.@en

Segment coordinate systems (CSs) of marker-based multi-segment foot models are used to measure foot kinematics, however their relationship to the underlying bony anatomy is barely studied. The aim of this study was to compare marker-based CSs (MCSs) with bone morphology-based CSs (BCSs) for the hindfoot and forefoot. Markers were placed on the right foot of fifteen healthy adults according to the Oxford, Rizzoli and Amsterdam Foot Model (OFM, RFM and AFM, respectively). A CT scan was made while the foot was loaded in a simulated weight-bearing device. BCSs were based on axes of inertia. The orientation difference between BCSs and MCSs was quantified in helical and 3D Euler angles. To determine whether the marker models were able to capture inter-subject variability in bone poses, linear regressions were performed. Compared to the hindfoot BCS, all MCSs were more toward plantar flexion and internal rotation, and RFM was also oriented toward more inversion. Compared to the forefoot BCS, OFM and RFM were oriented more toward dorsal and plantar flexion, respectively, and internal rotation, while AFM was not statistically different in the sagittal and transverse plane. In the frontal plane, OFM was more toward eversion and RFM and AFM more toward inversion compared to BCS. Inter-subject bone pose variability was captured with RFM and AFM in most planes of the hindfoot and forefoot, while this variability was not captured by OFM. When interpreting multi-segment foot model data it is important to realize that MCSs and BCSs do not always align.@en