Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Biomech. 2024 Mar;166:112001. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112001. Epub 2024 Feb 18.
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.
基于标记的多节足部模型的节段坐标系 (CSs) 用于测量足部运动学,但它们与潜在骨骼解剖结构的关系几乎没有研究。本研究的目的是比较基于标记的 CSs (MCSs) 和基于骨骼形态的 CSs (BCSs) 在后足和前足。根据牛津、里兹利和阿姆斯特丹足部模型 (OFM、RFM 和 AFM),在十五名健康成年人的右脚放置标记。当脚在模拟负重装置中加载时进行 CT 扫描。BCSs 基于惯性轴。以螺旋和 3D 欧拉角量化 BCSs 和 MCSs 之间的方向差异。为了确定标记模型是否能够捕获骨骼姿势的个体间变异性,进行了线性回归。与后足 BCS 相比,所有 MCSs 都更向跖屈和内旋,RFM 也更向内翻。与前足 BCS 相比,OFM 和 RFM 分别更向背屈和跖屈以及内旋,而 AFM 在矢状面和横断面上没有统计学差异。在额状面,与 BCS 相比,OFM 更向外展,RFM 和 AFM 更向内翻。RFM 和 AFM 在前足和后足的大多数平面上都能捕获个体间骨骼姿势的变异性,而 OFM 则不能。在解释多节足部模型数据时,重要的是要意识到 MCSs 和 BCSs 并不总是对齐的。