Volume 5 Supplement 1

3rd Congress of the International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics Community

Open Access

Reliability of three foot models to examine paediatric gait

  • Ryan Mahaffey1Email author,
  • Stewart Morrison1,
  • Wendy Drechsler1 and
  • Mary Cramp1
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20125(Suppl 1):O18

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-5-S1-O18

Published: 10 April 2012

Background

A variety of multi-segmental foot models have been produced to examine patterns of foot segmental movement during gait cycle to identify biomechanical differences between normal and pathological foot function[13]. The reliability of foot models to accurately describe motion of the foot joints is dependent on the ability of the examiner to repeatedly apply markers to specific landmarks and the relevance of models’ segmental descriptions to underlying anatomy. The aim of this study was to test the reliability of segmental angles measured by three published foot models during paediatric gait.

Materials and methods

Sixteen children, aged 6 to 12 years old, were recruited to the study. Marker sets for three foot models 3DFoot[1], Oxford Foot Model (OFM)[2], and Kinfoot[3] were applied to their right feet simultaneously which to the authors knowledge, is the first direct comparison of the three models during gait. Each foot model was assessed for repeatability of maximal joint angle and range of motion during the gait cycle between two testing occasions. Absolute angular differences and standard error of measurement (SEM) are reported.

Results

Repeatability of all maximal segmental angles and range of motions were higher in 3DFoot compared to OFM and Kinfoot (Table 1).
Table 1

Inter-session repeatability of foot model’s 3D maximal segmental angles over the gait cycle.

Model

Segments

Maximal joint angle

Range of joint angle

  

° Difference

SEM °

° Difference

SEM °

OFM

Hindfoot to Shank

2.1 ± 15.1

10.9

1.2 ± 8.0

5.7

3DFoot

Hindfoot to Shank

1.0 ± 5.2

3.6

1.0 ± 4.6

3.3

Kinfoot

Hindfoot to Shank

1.0 ± 5.1

3.6

1.4 ± 6.3

4.3

3DFoot

Midfoot to Hindfoot

0.8 ± 3.5

2.2

0.3 ± 2.7

1.9

Kinfoot

Midfoot to Hindfoot

3.0 ± 11.1

6.7

3.7 ± 11.3

6.6

OFM

Metatarsals to Hindfoot

0.8 ± 8.5

5.3

1.3 ± 5.7

5.4

3DFoot

Metatarsals to Midfoot

0.7 ± 4.0

2.9

0.6 ± 3.6

2.5

Kinfoot

Metatarsals to Midfoot

2.8 ± 7.8

4.8

2.6 ± 6.6

3.7

OFM

Hallux to Metatarsals

2.3 ± 15.6

11.2

0.4 ± 13.7

9.1

3DFoot

Hallux to Metatarsals

1.5 ± 10.0

6.2

0.4 ± 12.6

8.8

Kinfoot

Hallux to Metatarsals

4.4 ± 21.8

15.1

2.1 ± 11.8

7.2

Conclusion

Decreased measurement error observed in 3DFoot and Kinfoot models may be attributable to normalisation of kinematics data to subject standing position. In the OFM, non-normalisation of gait data resulted in variable segmental offsets, particularly in the frontal plane. Greater measurement error was observed for several foot segments in the Kinfoot model. This may be due to discrepancies in model segment definitions in relation to the underlying joint anatomy, especially around the midfoot to hindfoot segments. 3Dfoot model consistently showed the least measurement error in the segment motions examined and thus is appropriate for use to examine foot biomechanics in gait.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Health, Sport & Bioscience, University of East London

References

  1. Leardini A, Benedetti M, Berti L, Bettinelli D, Nativo R, Giannini S: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture. 2007, 25: 453-462. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carson M, Harrington M, Thompson N, O'Connor J, Theologis T: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech. 2001, 34: 1299-2307. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00101-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. MacWilliams B, Cowley M, Nicholson D: Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture. 2003, 17: 214-224. 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00103-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mahaffey et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement