Segment coordinate systems (CSs) of marker-based multi-segment foot models are used to measure foot kinematics, however their relationship to the underlying bony anatomy is barely studied. The aim of this study was to compare marker-based CSs (MCSs) with bone morphology-based CSs (BCSs) for the hindfoot and forefoot. Markers were placed on the right foot of fifteen healthy adults according to the Oxford, Rizzoli and Amsterdam Foot Model (OFM, RFM and AFM, respectively). A CT scan was made while the foot was loaded in a simulated weight-bearing device. BCSs were based on axes of inertia. The orientation difference between BCSs and MCSs was quantified in helical and 3D Euler angles. To determine whether the marker models were able to capture inter-subject variability in bone poses, linear regressions were performed. Compared to the hindfoot BCS, all MCSs were more toward plantar flexion and internal rotation, and RFM was also oriented toward more inversion. Compared to the forefoot BCS, OFM and RFM were oriented more toward dorsal and plantar flexion, respectively, and internal rotation, while AFM was not statistically different in the sagittal and transverse plane. In the frontal plane, OFM was more toward eversion and RFM and AFM more toward inversion compared to BCS. Inter-subject bone pose variability was captured with RFM and AFM in most planes of the hindfoot and forefoot, while this variability was not captured by OFM. When interpreting multi-segment foot model data it is important to realize that MCSs and BCSs do not always align.

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.

Background: The objective consisted of 2 elements, primarily to define 2 bone geometry variations of the ankle that may be of prognostic value on ankle instability and secondly to translate these bone variations from a 3D model to a simple 2D radiographic measurement for clinical use. Methods: The 3D tibial and talar shape differences derived from earlier studies were translated to two 2D radiographic parameters: the medial malleolar height angle (MMHA) and talar convexity angle (TCA) respectively to ensure clinical use. To assess validity, the MMHA and TCA were measured on 3D polygons derived from lower leg computed tomographic (CT) scans and 2D digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) of these polygons. To assess reliability, the MMHA and TCA were measured on standard radiographs by 2 observers calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The 3D angle measurements on the polygons showed substantial to excellent agreement with the 2D measurements on DRR for both the MMHA (ICC 0.84-0.93) and TCA (ICC 0.88-0.96). The interobserver reliability was moderate with an ICC of 0.58 and an ICC of 0.64 for both the MMHA and TCA, respectively. The intraobserver reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.96 and 0.97 for the MMHA and the TCA, respectively. Conclusion: Two newly defined radiographic parameters (MMHA and TCA) are valid and can be assessed with excellent intraobserver reliability on standard radiographs. The interobserver reliability was moderate and indicates training is required to ensure uniformity in measurement technique. The current method may be used to translate more variations in bone shape prior to implementation in clinical practice. Level of Evidence: Level III, cohort study.

Understanding the effect of individual marker misplacements is important to improve the repeatability and aid to the interpretation of multi-segment foot models like the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models (OFM, RFM). Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the effect of controlled anatomical marker misplacement on multi-segment foot kinematics (i.e. marker placement sensitivity) as calculated by OFM and RFM in a range of foot sizes. Ten healthy adults and nine children were included. A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on their right foot and a static standing trial was collected. Each marker was replaced ± 10 mm in steps of 1 mm over the three axes of a foot coordinate system. For each replacement the change in segment orientation (tibia, hindfoot, midfoot, forefoot) was calculated with respect to the reference pose in which no markers were replaced. A linear fit was made to calculate the sensitivity of segment orientation to marker misplacement in °/mm. Additionally, the effect of foot size on the sensitivity was determined using linear regressions. For every foot segment of both models, at least one marker had a sensitivity ≥ 1.0°/mm. Highest values were found for the markers at the posterior aspect of the calcaneus in OFM (1.5°/mm) and the basis of the second metatarsal in RFM (1.4°/mm). Foot size had a small effect on 40% of the sensitivity values. This study identified markers of which consistent placement is critical to prevent clinically relevant errors (>5°). For more repeatable multi-segment models, the role of these markers within the models’ definitions needs to be reconsidered.

Movement of skin markers with respect to their underlying bone (i.e. soft tissue artifacts (STAs)) might corrupt the accuracy of marker-based movement analyses. This study aims to quantify STAs in 3D for foot markers and their effect on multi-segment foot kinematics as calculated by the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models (OFM, RFM). Fifteen subjects with asymptomatic feet were seated on a custom-made loading device on a computed tomography (CT) table, with a combined OFM and RFM marker set on their right foot. One unloaded reference CT-scan with neutral foot position was performed, followed by 9 loaded CT-scans at different foot positions. The 3D-displacement (i.e. STA) of each marker in the underlying bone coordinate system between the reference scan and other scans was calculated. Subsequently, segment orientations and joint angles were calculated from the marker positions according to OFM and RFM definitions with and without STAs. The differences in degrees were defined as the errors caused by the marker displacements. Markers on the lateral malleolus and proximally on the posterior aspect of the calcaneus showed the largest STAs. The hindfoot-shank joint angle was most affected by STAs in the most extreme foot position (40° plantar flexion) in the sagittal plane for RFM (mean: 6.7°, max: 11.8°) and the transverse plane for OFM (mean: 3.9°, max: 6.8°). This study showed that STAs introduce clinically relevant errors in multi-segment foot kinematics. Moreover, it identified marker locations that are most affected by STAs, suggesting that their use within multi-segment foot models should be reconsidered.

Background: The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) are the two most frequently used multi-segment models to measure foot kinematics. However, a comprehensive comparison of the kinematic output of these models is lacking. Research question: What are the differences in kinematic output between OFM and RFM during normal gait and typical pathological gait patterns in healthy adults?. Methods: A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on the right foot of ten healthy subjects. A static standing trial and six level walking trials were collected for normal gait and for four voluntarily adopted gait types: equinus, crouch, toe-in and toe-out. Joint angles were calculated for every trial for the hindfoot relative to shank (HF-SH), forefoot relative to hindfoot (FF-HF) and hallux relative to forefoot (HX-FF). Average static joint angles of both models were compared between models. After subtracting these offsets, the remaining dynamic angles were compared using statistical parametric mapping repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests. Furthermore, range of motion was compared between models for every angle. Results: For the static posture, RFM compared to OFM measured more plantar flexion (Δ = 6°) and internal rotation (Δ = 7°) for HF-SH, more plantar flexion (Δ = 34°) and inversion (Δ = 13°) for FF-HF and more dorsal flexion (Δ = 37°) and abduction (Δ = 12°) for HX-FF. During normal walking, kinematic differences were found in various parts of the gait cycle. Moreover, range of motion was larger in the HF-SH for OFM and in FF-HF and HX-FF for RFM. The differences between models were not the same for all gait types. Equinus and toe-out gait demonstrated most pronounced differences. Significance: Differences are present in kinematic output between OFM and RFM, which also depend on gait type. Therefore, kinematic output of foot and ankle studies should be interpreted with careful consideration of the multi-segment foot model used.