Ravari Reihaneh, Rehani Mayank, Lewicke Justin, Vette Albert H, Hebert Jacqueline S
Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Gait Posture. 2025 Sep;121:166-172. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.05.011. Epub 2025 May 28.
The accuracy of biomechanical data using a Helen Hayes model in instrumented gait analysis can be significantly affected by soft tissue artifacts (STA).
How can STA be quantified and the accuracy of angular kinematics be improved in transfemoral osseointegrated prosthesis gait analysis?
To quantify STA associated with the thigh marker, we examined 12 data sets for which an implant marker was added to the Helen Hayes marker set, placed on the thigh segment of four transfemoral osseointegrated prosthesis users. This marker was located on the implant connection extending from the femur. We aimed to identify differences in the calculated range of motion (ROM) during gait when using implant, medial knee, or thigh markers.
The results indicate significant differences in ROM for hip rotation and knee varus/valgus between markers for all but one participant (p < .05). Hip rotation differences between the thigh and implant markers exceeded 10˚ for one participant and were about 5˚ for two others. Knee varus/valgus ROM differences between markers ranged from 3˚ to 9˚ for three participants. No significant differences were found for hip flexion/extension, hip abduction/adduction, or knee flexion/extension for most participants.
Using an implant marker in transfemoral osseointegrated prosthesis users results in more accurate femoral tracking than using the thigh marker. Due to the similarity in angular kinematics observed between the medial knee and implant markers, the medial knee or the implant marker should be used as an alternative to the thigh marker for osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis users.
在仪器化步态分析中,使用海伦·海耶斯模型获得的生物力学数据的准确性会受到软组织伪影(STA)的显著影响。
在经股骨骨整合假体步态分析中,如何量化STA并提高角运动学的准确性?
为了量化与大腿标记物相关的STA,我们检查了12个数据集,在这12个数据集中,向海伦·海耶斯标记物组中添加了一个植入物标记物,并将其放置在四名经股骨骨整合假体使用者的大腿节段上。该标记物位于从股骨延伸出的植入物连接部位。我们旨在确定在步态过程中使用植入物、内侧膝关节或大腿标记物时计算出的运动范围(ROM)的差异。
结果表明,除一名参与者外,所有参与者的标记物之间在髋关节旋转和膝关节内翻/外翻的ROM方面存在显著差异(p<0.05)。一名参与者的大腿和植入物标记物之间的髋关节旋转差异超过10°,另外两名参与者约为5°。三名参与者的标记物之间的膝关节内翻/外翻ROM差异在3°至9°之间。大多数参与者在髋关节屈伸、髋关节外展/内收或膝关节屈伸方面未发现显著差异。
在经股骨骨整合假体使用者中使用植入物标记物比使用大腿标记物能获得更准确的股骨跟踪。由于在内侧膝关节和植入物标记物之间观察到角运动学的相似性,对于骨整合经股骨假体使用者,内侧膝关节或植入物标记物应作为大腿标记物的替代物使用。