Accuracy and Feasibility of Dual Fluoroscopy and Model-Based Tracking to Quantify In Vivo Hip Kinematics During Clinical Exams

Chondrolabral damage in hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) may result from motion conflict due to abnormal bony morphology. Clinical range of motion and skin-marker motion analysis studies indicate that kinematics are altered in FAI hips, but assessments are limited due to subjective goniometer alignment, skin motion artifact, and imprecise estimations of the hip joint center. Computer simulations of collision between the femur and pelvis suggest that FAI reduces range of motion, but assume a fixed center of rotation and neglect bulk soft tissue restraints. Thus, hip impingement has not been accurately quantified in vivo.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Anatomical and Functional Hip Joint Center Methods: The Effects of Activity Type, Gender, and Proximal Reference Segment

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering ◽

10.1115/1.4032054 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 138 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

C. A. McGibbon ◽

J. Fowler ◽

S. Chase ◽

K. Steeves ◽

J. Landry ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hip Joint ◽

Range Of Movement ◽

Functional Methods ◽

Reference Segment ◽

Movement Type ◽

And Gender ◽

Joint Center ◽

Chair Rise ◽

Hip Joint Center

Accurate hip joint center (HJC) location is critical when studying hip joint biomechanics. The HJC is often determined from anatomical methods, but functional methods are becoming increasingly popular. Several studies have examined these methods using simulations and in vivo gait data, but none has studied high-range of motion activities, such a chair rise, nor has HJC prediction been compared between males and females. Furthermore, anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) marker visibility during chair rise can be problematic, requiring a sacral cluster as an alternative proximal segment; but functional HJC has not been explored using this approach. For this study, the quality of HJC measurement was based on the joint gap error (JGE), which is the difference in global HJC between proximal and distal reference segments. The aims of the present study were to: (1) determine if JGE varies between pelvic and sacral referenced HJC for functional and anatomical methods, (2) investigate which functional calibration motion results in the lowest JGE and if the JGE varies depending on movement type (gait versus chair rise) and gender, and (3) assess whether the functional HJC calibration results in lower JGE than commonly used anatomical approaches and if it varies with movement type and gender. Data were collected on 39 healthy adults (19 males and 20 females) aged 14–50 yr old. Participants performed four hip “calibration” tests (arc, cross, star, and star-arc), as well as gait and chair rise (activities of daily living (ADL)). Two common anatomical methods were used to estimate HJC and were compared to HJC computed using a published functional method with the calibration motions above, when using pelvis or sacral cluster as the proximal reference. For ADL trials, functional methods resulted in lower JGE (12–19 mm) compared to anatomical methods (13–34 mm). It was also found that women had significantly higher JGE compared to men and JGE was significantly higher for chair rise compared to gait, across all methods. JGE for sacrum referenced HJC was consistently higher than for the pelvis, but only by 2.5 mm. The results indicate that dynamic hip range of movement and gender are significant factors in HJC quality. The findings also suggest that a rigid sacral cluster for HJC estimation is an acceptable alternative for relying solely on traditional pelvis markers.

Download Full-text

The weighted optimal common shape technique improves identification of the hip joint center of rotation in vivo

Journal of Orthopaedic Research® ◽

10.1002/jor.21426 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 29 (10) ◽

pp. 1470-1475 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

Markus O. Heller ◽

Stefan Kratzenstein ◽

Rainald M. Ehrig ◽

Georgi Wassilew ◽

Georg N. Duda ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hip Joint ◽

Center Of Rotation ◽

Joint Center ◽

Hip Joint Center ◽

Common Shape

Download Full-text

Validation of Functional Methods for Calculating Shoulder Joint Centers Using 3D Motion Analysis

Volume 2: Biomedical and Biotechnology Engineering ◽

10.1115/imece2010-40386 ◽

2010 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Derek J. Lura ◽

Stephanie L. Carey ◽

Rajiv V. Dubey

Keyword(s):

Range Of Motion ◽

Motion Analysis ◽

Hip Joint ◽

Gradient Method ◽

Shoulder Joint ◽

Analysis Data ◽

3D Motion Analysis ◽

Functional Methods ◽

Joint Center ◽

Hip Joint Center

Research in upper body kinematics and kinetics requires accurate estimation of anatomical joints. Currently the use of regressive techniques using anatomical landmarks is the most common way of calculating upper limb joint centers. Research has shown that functional joint center methods can produce more accurate results than traditional regressive methods in the estimation of hip joint center. This paper investigates the use of functional methods for the estimation of the shoulder joint center using 3D motion analysis data. Three methods for calculating the functional joint center were tested: 1) a standard sphere fit regression, 2) a regression developed and tested for use finding the hip joint center (Piazza method) [1], and 3) a gradient method developed for this paper similar to the one used by Schonauer [2]. First the functional joint center methods were tested in MATLAB using data with random points rotating around a known joint center with varying amounts of noise. Using the MATLAB calculations the accuracy and repeatability of each method was analyzed. Functional joint centers were then calculated from two sets of motion analysis data. The first data set contained shoulder range of motion data, and the second set was gathered during activities of daily living (ADL). Both motion analysis sets used data collected from a healthy adult male subject using a Vicon motion analysis system. The repeatability of each method using the motion analysis data was then analyzed. The MATLAB tests show that the gradient method has the highest tolerance to noise in the data. Results from the motion analysis test show that, of the methods tested, no functional method was found to have consistent results for individual tasks. Each of the functional methods requires a range of motion not prevalent in most ADLs in order to generate a reliable joint center. Joint centers calculations improved in accuracy and reliability with a greater number of trials and larger range of motion. The functional methods are suitable for use in future studies that include a large range of motion.

Download Full-text