Comparison of six different marker sets to analyze knee kinematics and kinetics during landings

Abstract

In motion analysis marker sets or protocols are mostly developed for gait analysis and it has been shown that the marker set used affects the results of gait analysis. These marker sets are also used for the analysis of high dynamic sports movements. Single-leg landings are a common tool to investigate functional knee stability and further to predict injury risks where frontal plane motion and loading seem to play an important role. Until now, it is unknown how the marker sets affect the motion analysis results of such high dynamic movements. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare six different marker sets. Three-dimensional motion and force data of single-leg landings in 12 healthy subjects were collected. Six different marker sets consisting of up to 26 markers and two clusters were simultaneously attached to the subjects’ lower limb and pelvis. The results show that particularly, the knee joint angles in the frontal and transverse plane showed the greatest differences between marker sets with in part contrary joint angle directions and great differences in angle magnitude. In addition, the amount of joint load was dependent on the marker set used for analysis. These results show that one must be careful when interpreting and comparing data of the frontal or transverse plane during high dynamic movements.

Comparison of plugin and redundant marker sets to analyze gait kinematics between different populations

“…Specifically, in the frontal and transverse plane, the differences between the two models were demonstrated for the ROM of Hip Rotation in both groups and Knee Abduction/Adduction in OA patients, the initial joint angle of the Knee Abduction/Adduction and Subtalar Eversion/Inversion in OA patients, Peak Internal Rotation of the Hip Rotation in healthy subjects, Peak Adduction and Peak Abduction of the Knee Abduction/Adduction in OA patients, Peak Internal Rotation and Peak External Rotation of the Knee Rotation in healthy subjects, Peak Inversion in healthy subjects. These findings are comparable with previous studies [ 19 – 21 , 24 , 29 ]. In previous studies, some researchers found the differences between marker sets at the knee and hip rotation in the transverse plane [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 29 ], while others also found the differences at the knee in the frontal plane [ 24 , 25 , 29 ].…”

“…These findings are comparable with previous studies [ 19 – 21 , 24 , 29 ]. In previous studies, some researchers found the differences between marker sets at the knee and hip rotation in the transverse plane [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 29 ], while others also found the differences at the knee in the frontal plane [ 24 , 25 , 29 ]. In this study, the findings in healthy subjects are in agreement with the former, while the findings in OA patients correspond to the latter.…”

Elevated In Vivo ACL Strain Is Associated With a Straight Knee in Both the Sagittal and the Coronal Planes

“…Specifically, valgus angles of approximately 10° to 20° in uninjured controls and approximately 40° during injury scenarios have been reported. 43,67 However, coronal plane angles estimated using motion capture may be variable depending on the chosen marker set 45 and are susceptible to skin motion artifact. 2 With regard to videography, the relative camera position and the flexion angle of the participant’s knee can lead to significant overestimation (~30°) of the resultant coronal plane angles.…”

Biomechanical Effects of Prophylactic Knee Bracing on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk: A Systematic Review

“…55 The difference in reflective marker sets used in various studies can also affect both joint kinematic and kinetic readings, further complicating the comparison of data from different articles. 56…”

“…55 The difference in reflective marker sets used in various studies can also affect both joint kinematic and kinetic readings, further complicating the comparison of data from different articles. 56 Although these reviewed studies have shown statistically significant modulations in biomechanical variables with the use of PKBs, it is unknown if the magnitude of these changes are clinically significant in the prevention of ACL injuries in noninjured individuals. There is a paucity of evidence in the current literature to describe minimal clinically important differences (MCID) values for kinematic and kinematic factors in the reduction of ACL injuries.…”