Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
Chantal M. Hulshof (Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Wouter Schallig (Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam)
J. C. van den Noort (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences)
Geert J. Streekstra (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
R. P. Kleipool (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
Johannes GG Dobbe (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
Mario Maas (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences)
Jaap Harlaar (TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Erasmus MC)
Marjolein M. Van Der Krogt (Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
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.