Precision of determining bone pose and marker position in the foot and lower leg from computed tomography scans: How low can we go in radiation dose?

Schallig, Wouter; Noort, Josien C. van den; Kleipool, Roeland P.; Dobbe, Johannes G. G.; Krogt, Marjolein M. van der; Harlaar, Jaap; Maas, Mario; Streekstra, Geert J.

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.05.004

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsequently, these segmented objects were registered (i.e. matched) to the other scans to obtain their position and orientation in all scans [ 49 ]. The 3D displacement of each marker with respect to its underlying bone (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Amsterdam Foot Model: a clinically informed multi‐segment foot model developed to minimize measurement errors in foot kinematics

Schallig

Noort

Piening

et al. 2022

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Foot and ankle joint kinematics are measured during clinical gait analyses with marker-based multi-segment foot models. To improve on existing models, measurement errors due to soft tissue artifacts (STAs) and marker misplacements should be reduced. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define a clinically informed, universally applicable multi-segment foot model, which is developed to minimize these measurement errors. Methods The Amsterdam foot model (AFM) is a follow-up of existing multi-segment foot models. It was developed by consulting a clinical expert panel and optimizing marker locations and segment definitions to minimize measurement errors. Evaluation of the model was performed in three steps. First, kinematic errors due to STAs were evaluated and compared to two frequently used foot models, i.e. the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models (OFM, RFM). Previously collected computed tomography data was used of 15 asymptomatic feet with markers attached, to determine the joint angles with and without STAs taken into account. Second, the sensitivity to marker misplacements was determined for AFM and compared to OFM and RFM using static standing trials of 19 asymptomatic subjects in which each marker was virtually replaced in multiple directions. Third, a preliminary inter- and intra-tester repeatability analysis was performed by acquiring 3D gait analysis data of 15 healthy subjects, who were equipped by two testers for two sessions. Repeatability of all kinematic parameters was assessed through analysis of the standard deviation (σ) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results The AFM was defined and all calculation methods were provided. Errors in joint angles due to STAs were in general similar or smaller in AFM (≤2.9°) compared to OFM (≤4.0°) and RFM (≤6.7°). AFM was also more robust to marker misplacement than OFM and RFM, as a large sensitivity of kinematic parameters to marker misplacement (i.e. > 1.0°/mm) was found only two times for AFM as opposed to six times for OFM and five times for RFM. The average intra-tester repeatability of AFM angles was σ:2.2[0.9°], SEM:3.3 ± 0.9° and the inter-tester repeatability was σ:3.1[2.1°], SEM:5.2 ± 2.3°. Conclusions Measurement errors of AFM are smaller compared to two widely-used multi-segment foot models. This qualifies AFM as a follow-up to existing foot models, which should be evaluated further in a range of clinical application areas.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%