Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Meeting abstract
  • Open Access

Repeatability of a multi-segment foot model with 15-marker set in normal adults

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 4 and
  • 1
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20147 (Suppl 1) :A74

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A74

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Narrow Range
  • Sagittal Plane
  • Healthy Adult
  • Plane Motion
  • Transverse Plane

Several 3D multi-segment foot models (MFMs) have been introduced for the in vivo analysis of dynamic foot kinematics [1, 2]. However, there is scanty evidence available to support their clinical use. Considering the potential of MFM to assess the function in foot pathology, there is a need for simple, reproducible and reliable multi-segment foot models. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of a simple MFM with 15-marker set.

Twenty healthy adults mean aged 28.9 years (10 males and 10 females) were tested. Eight markers of 15-marker set were placed in foot to evaluate segmental foot motion. Three representative strides from five separate trials were used for analysis from each session. Kinematic data of foot segmental motion was collected and tracked using the Foot3D Multi-Segment Software (Motion Analysis Co., Santa Rosa. CA). Retests were performed in the same manner with an interval of 4 weeks. Coefficients of multiple correlation (CMC) and intra-class correlation (ICC) were calculated in order to assess the inter-trial and inter-session repeatability. Inter-segment foot angles from healthy adults from a MFM with 15-marker set showed a narrow range of variability during the whole gait cycle.

The mean inter-trial ICC (± Standard deviation) was 0.981 (± 0.010), which was interpreted as excellent. The mean inter-trial CMC (± Standard deviation ) was 0.948 (± 0.027), which was interpreted as excellent or very good repeatability. The mean inter-session ICC (±SD) was 0.886 (± 0.047) and the mean inter-session CMC (±SD) was 0.801 (± 0.077), which were interpreted as excellent or very good repeatability. The lowest repeatability was in the transverse plane at the forefoot and the most consistent finding was observed at the sagittal plane of the hallux and hindfoot (Table 1, Figure 1).
Table 1

Repeatability of foot kinematics

 

Inter-trial

Inter-session

 

CMC

ICC

CMC

ICC

Hallux

    

Flex/Ext

0.971

0.990

0.796

0.880

Rotation

0.970

0.990

0.951

0.974

Hindfoot

    

Flex/Ext

0.931

0.976

0.837

0.911

Pro/Sup

0.890

0.961

0.697

0.838

Rotation

0.927

0.974

0.728

0.820

Arch

    

Height

0.959

0.992

0.798

0.883

Length

0.909

0.998

0.980

0.840

Index*

0.952

0.972

0.729

0.989

Forefoot

    

Flex/Ext

0.978

0.986

0.840

0.913

Pro/Sup

0.993

0.968

0.687

0.814

Rotation

0.972

0.983

0.813

0.890

Medial forefoot

    

Flex/Ext

0.956

0.984

0.834

0.909

Pro/Sup

0.916

0.975

0.808

0.892

Rotation

0.949

0.985

0.808

0.893

Lateral forefoot

    

Flex/Ext

0.957

0.985

0.765

0.866

Pro/Sup

0.929

0.970

0.763

0.865

Rotation

0.954

0.983

0.790

0.877

Figure 1
Figure 1

Walking kinematics for the 1st and 2nd visit (average with a range representing 2 standard deviations). Each row shows the motion of each segment: hallux, hindfoot, arch, forefoot, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot motion. Each column represents motion in each of the three planes (sagittal, coronal, transverse plane). Horizontal axis represents gait cycle, and vertical axis represents range of motion.

We demonstrated a MFM with 15-marker set had high inter-trial and inter-session repeatability, especially in sagittal plane motion. We thought this MFM would be applicable to evaluation of the motion of the foot segment during gait.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
(2)
Department of Statistics, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
(3)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
(4)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

References

  1. Simon J, Doederlein L, McIntosh AS, Metaxiotis D, Bock HG, Wolf SI: The Heidelberg foot measurement method: development, description and assessment. Gait Posture. 2006, 23: 411-424. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.07.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carson MC, Harrington ME, Thompson N, O'Connor JJ, Theologis TN: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech. 2001, 34: 1299-1307. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00101-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement