Kainz Hans, Hajek Martin, Modenese Luca, Saxby David J, Lloyd David G, Carty Christopher P
School of Allied Health Sciences, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia; Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia; Queensland Children's Motion Analysis Service, Queensland Paediatric Rehabilitation Service, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia; University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien, Vienna, Austria.
Gait Posture. 2017 Mar;53:179-184. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.01.023. Epub 2017 Jan 31.
In human motion analysis predictive or functional methods are used to estimate the location of the hip joint centre (HJC). It has been shown that the Harrington regression equations (HRE) and geometric sphere fit (GSF) method are the most accurate predictive and functional methods, respectively. To date, the comparative reliability of both approaches has not been assessed. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the reliability of the HRE and the GSF methods, (2) analyse the impact of the number of thigh markers used in the GSF method on the reliability, (3) evaluate how alterations to the movements that comprise the functional trials impact HJC estimations using the GSF method, and (4) assess the influence of the initial guess in the GSF method on the HJC estimation. Fourteen healthy adults were tested on two occasions using a three-dimensional motion capturing system. Skin surface marker positions were acquired while participants performed quite stance, perturbed and non-perturbed functional trials, and walking trials. Results showed that the HRE were more reliable in locating the HJC than the GSF method. However, comparison of inter-session hip kinematics during gait did not show any significant difference between the approaches. Different initial guesses in the GSF method did not result in significant differences in the final HJC location. The GSF method was sensitive to the functional trial performance and therefore it is important to standardize the functional trial performance to ensure a repeatable estimate of the HJC when using the GSF method.
在人体运动分析中,预测性方法或功能性方法被用于估计髋关节中心(HJC)的位置。研究表明,哈灵顿回归方程(HRE)和几何球体拟合(GSF)方法分别是最准确的预测性方法和功能性方法。迄今为止,尚未评估这两种方法的相对可靠性。本研究的目的是:(1)比较HRE和GSF方法的可靠性;(2)分析GSF方法中使用的大腿标记数量对可靠性的影响;(3)评估构成功能性试验的运动变化如何影响使用GSF方法的HJC估计;(4)评估GSF方法中初始猜测对HJC估计的影响。14名健康成年人使用三维运动捕捉系统进行了两次测试。在参与者进行安静站立、受扰和未受扰功能性试验以及步行试验时,采集皮肤表面标记的位置。结果表明,在定位HJC方面,HRE比GSF方法更可靠。然而,步态期间会话间髋关节运动学的比较在两种方法之间未显示出任何显著差异。GSF方法中不同的初始猜测在最终HJC位置上未导致显著差异。GSF方法对功能性试验表现敏感,因此在使用GSF方法时,标准化功能性试验表现以确保HJC的可重复估计很重要。