Quantification of soft tissue artefact in motion analysis by combining 3D fluoroscopy and stereophotogrammetry: a study on two subjects

Tibiofemoral contact forces during walking, running and sidestepping

“…A 10-(CMR) or 12-(CHESM) camera motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford Metrics, UK) (200 and 120 Hz, respectively) was used to acquire three-dimensional motion of participants wearing a full-body marker set [18]. The lower-limb portion of the marker set was modified to include 10-marker clusters on the thighs and shanks that were positioned on regions of the limbs to minimize soft tissue artefact [20]. Ground reaction forces (GRFs) were acquired using two (CMR) (Kistler Instrumente, Switzerland) or three (CHESM) (Advanced Mechanical Technology, USA) force plates (1000 and 2400 Hz, respectively).…”

Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics of high range of motion activities of daily living

“…However, because the receivers were merely fixed to the skin, an error that was associated with the movement of the soft tissue surrounding the more rigid underlying bone was accrued. It has been shown that the thigh is more affected by soft tissue artefact than the shank 29,30 and that the proximal areas of the segment accrued greater error than the distal and lateral areas. 30,31 The placement of the receivers in the current study was on the lateral side at onethird of the segment length from the distal end, where it would be less affected by soft tissue movement.…”

“…It has been shown that the thigh is more affected by soft tissue artefact than the shank 29,30 and that the proximal areas of the segment accrued greater error than the distal and lateral areas. 30,31 The placement of the receivers in the current study was on the lateral side at onethird of the segment length from the distal end, where it would be less affected by soft tissue movement. [29][30][31][32] Several studies have also advised caution in interpreting the data in the transverse and frontal planes at the knee joint, as these are prone to greater inaccuracies due to soft tissue artefact than in the flexion-extension plane.…”

“…[29][30][31][32] Several studies have also advised caution in interpreting the data in the transverse and frontal planes at the knee joint, as these are prone to greater inaccuracies due to soft tissue artefact than in the flexion-extension plane. [29][30][31][32] In the current study, rotation and abduction-adduction angles must also be considered subject to greater error than angles in the sagittal plane. However, most subjects had little excess soft tissue as indicated by their low mean body mass index (22.7 kg/m 2 ).…”

“…30,31 The placement of the receivers in the current study was on the lateral side at onethird of the segment length from the distal end, where it would be less affected by soft tissue movement. [29][30][31][32] Several studies have also advised caution in interpreting the data in the transverse and frontal planes at the knee joint, as these are prone to greater inaccuracies due to soft tissue artefact than in the flexion-extension plane. [29][30][31][32] In the current study, rotation and abduction-adduction angles must also be considered subject to greater error than angles in the sagittal plane.…”