Abstract
Abstract
Skeletal kinematics are traditionally measured by motion analysis methods such as optical motion capture (OMC). While easy to carry out and clinically relevant for certain applications, it is not suitable for analysing the ankle joint due to its anatomical complexity. A greater understanding of the function of healthy ankle joints could lead to an improvement in the success of ankle-replacement surgeries. Biplane video X-ray (BVX) is a technique that allows direct measurement of individual bones using highspeed, dynamic X-Rays.
Objective
To develop a protocol to quantify in-vivo foot and ankle kinematics using a bespoke High-speed Dynamic Biplane X-ray system combined with OMC.
Methods
Two healthy volunteers performed five level walks and step-down trials while simultaneous capturing BVX and synchronised OMC. participants undertook MR imaging (Magnetom 3T Prisma, Siemens) which was manually segmented into 3D bone models (Simpleware Scan IP, Synopsis). Bone position and orientation for the Talus, Tibia and Calcaneus were calculated by manual matching of 3D Bone models to X-Rays (DSX Suite, C-Motion, Inc.). OMC markers were tracked (QTM, Qualisys) and processed using Visual 3D (C-motion, Inc.).
Results
Initial results for level walking showed that OMC overestimated the rotational range of motion (ROM) in all three planes for the tibiotalar joint compared with BVX (Sagittal: OMC 30°/BVX 20°, Frontal: OMC 16°/BVX 15° and Transverse: OMC 20°/BVX 17°). For the subtalar joint, OMC (22°) over-estimated sagittal ROM compared with BVX (14°) and underestimated the ROM in the other planes (Frontal: OMC 8°/BVX 15° and Transverse: OMC 18°/BVX 20°).
Conclusions
The results highlight the discrepancy between OMC and BVX methods. However, the BVX results are consistent with previous literature. The protocol developed here will form the foundation of future patient-based studies to investigate in-vivo ankle kinematics.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
