Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Research Article
Repeatability of the Oxford Foot Model for Kinematic Gait Analysis of the Foot and Ankle
| van Hoeve S1*, de Vos J1, Weijers PHE1, Verbruggen JPAM1, Willems P2,3, Poeze M1,3 and Meijer K2,3 | |
| 1Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands | |
| 2Department of Human Movement Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands | |
| 3NUTRIM School for nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands | |
| Corresponding Author : | Sander van Hoeve Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Tel: 416323604 E-mail: sander.hoeve@mumc.nl |
| Received: June 26, 2015 Accepted: August 20, 2015 Published: August 24, 2015 | |
| Citation: Hoeve S, de Vos J, Weijers P, Verbruggen J and Willems P, et al. (2015) Repeatability of the Oxford Foot Model for Kinematic Gait Analysis of the Foot and Ankle. Clin Res Foot Ankle 3:171. doi:10.4172/2329-910X.1000171 | |
| Copyright: © 2015 Sander van Hoeve, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | |
| Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google | |
Abstract
Introduction: Kinematic gait analysis via the multi-segmental Oxford foot model (OFM) may be a valuable addition to the biomechanical examination of the foot and ankle. The aim of this study is to assess the repeatability of the OFM in healthy subjects.
Methods: Nine healthy subjects, without a history of lower extremity injury, were recruited. Markers were placed according to the OFM requirements. Motion capture was conducted using the VICON NEXUS system on two separate test days, with two tests on each day conducted by two independent examiners. The range of motion (ROM) of the following inter-segments was selected for further analysis: forefoot-hindfoot, forefoot-tibia and hindfoottibia in frontal, sagittal and transverse planes. Each step was divided in two parts, a loading phase (from heel strike to midstance) and a push-off phase (from midstance to toe-off). The Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of the measurements with 90% confidence bounds (SEM90) and the Minimal Differences needed to be considered real (MD) with 95% confidence interval were calculated for inter-observer and intra-observer and effect of trial using SPSS.
Results: There was a linear correlation between the number of trials and the ICC's (r2=0.49, p<0.001), with six trial leading to good ICC's. Inter-observer repeatability: In the loading phase almost all ICC's were good or excellent (0.53-0.97) with only one parameter below 0.60. In the push-off phase two parameters scored moderate agreement, where the other 7 parameters had well to excellent agreement. The SEM90 values were varying from 0.85° to 2.49° in the loading phase and from 0.92° to 4.40° in the push-off phase Intra-observer repeatability: In the loading phase all ICC's were good or excellent (0.71-0.97). In the push-off phase two parameters scored moderate agreement and the other 7 parameters had well to excellent agreement. The SEM90 ranged from 1.15° to 4.53° in the loading phase and in the push-off phase from 1.71° to 5.49°.
The SEM90 values were varying from 0.85° to 2.49° in the loading phase and from 0.92° to 4.40° in the push-off phase. Intra-observer repeatability: In the loading phase all ICC's were good or excellent (0.71-0.97). In the push-off phase two parameters scored moderate agreement and the other 7 parameters had good to excellent agreement.
Conclusion: The repeatability analysis presented in this study provide excellent basis for objective measurement of the ankle and foot biomechanics. Results for inter-observer and intra-observer repeatability showed moderate to excellent ICC's and acceptable SEM90. Best result were found in the sagittal plane (flexion/extension) followed by the frontal plane (abduction/adduction) and the transverse plane (inversion/eversion).
