The use of the greater trochanter marker in the thigh segment model: implications for hip and knee frontal and transverse plane motion.
The use of the greater trochanter marker in the thigh segment model: implications for hip and knee frontal and transverse plane motion.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jshs.2015.01.002
复制
发表时间：
2016-03
影响因子：
11.7
通讯作者：
Salsich G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graci V;Salsich G
大转子标记通常用于 3 维 (3D) 模型；然而，其对步态过程中髋部和膝部运动学的影响尚不清楚。在量化额状和横切面髋部和膝部运动学时，了解大转子标记的影响非常重要，这些参数与研究患有髌股疼痛、膝骨关节炎、前交叉韧带 (ACL) 损伤和髋部疼痛等疾病的个体特别相关。本研究的目的是评估将大转子纳入大腿节段的构建对步态过程中髋部和膝部运动学的影响。使用表面标记系统收集 19 名健康受试者行走期间的 3D 运动学数据。在站立期间的两个时间点比较两个大腿节段定义（有和没有大转子）的髋部和膝部角度：最大膝关节屈曲（PKF）和最小膝关节屈曲（MinKF）。在两个时间点，髋部和膝部角度在横向平面上的大小和方向不同。在具有大转子的大腿模型中，髋部比没有大转子的大腿模型更加外旋（PKF：-9.34°±5.21°与1.40°±5.22°，MinKF：-5.68°±4.24°与5.01°±4.86°；p<0.001）。在具有大转子的大腿模型中，与使用没有大转子的大腿定义计算的膝盖角度相比，膝关节角度更加内旋（PKF：14.67°±6.78°与4.33°±4.18°，MinKF：10.54°±6.71°与-0.01°±2.69°； p < 0.001）。两个时间点的矢状面角度和额面角度均检测到微小但显着的差异 (p < 0.001)。髋部和膝部运动学在不同的节段定义中存在差异，包括或排除大转子标记，尤其是在横向平面中。因此，在使用表面标记计算 3D 运动学以进行运动评估时，在考虑是否在大腿节段模型中包含大转子时，清楚了解所使用的不同标记组和节段模型的效果非常重要。
The greater trochanter marker is commonly used in 3-dimensional (3D) models; however, its influence on hip and knee kinematics during gait is unclear. Understanding the influence of the greater trochanter marker is important when quantifying frontal and transverse plane hip and knee kinematics, parameters which are particularly relevant to investigate in individuals with conditions such as patellofemoral pain, knee osteoarthritis, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, and hip pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of including the greater trochanter in the construction of the thigh segment on hip and knee kinematics during gait. 3D kinematics were collected in 19 healthy subjects during walking using a surface marker system. Hip and knee angles were compared across two thigh segment definitions (with and without greater trochanter) at two time points during stance: peak knee flexion (PKF) and minimum knee flexion (MinKF). Hip and knee angles differed in magnitude and direction in the transverse plane at both time points. In the thigh model with the greater trochanter the hip was more externally rotated than in the thigh model without the greater trochanter (PKF: −9.34° ± 5.21° vs. 1.40° ± 5.22°, MinKF: −5.68° ± 4.24° vs. 5.01° ± 4.86°; p < 0.001). In the thigh model with the greater trochanter, the knee angle was more internally rotated compared to the knee angle calculated using the thigh definition without the greater trochanter (PKF: 14.67° ± 6.78° vs. 4.33° ± 4.18°, MinKF: 10.54° ± 6.71° vs. −0.01° ± 2.69°; p < 0.001). Small but significant differences were detected in the sagittal and frontal plane angles at both time points (p < 0.001). Hip and knee kinematics differed across different segment definitions including or excluding the greater trochanter marker, especially in the transverse plane. Therefore when considering whether to include the greater trochanter in the thigh segment model when using a surface markers to calculate 3D kinematics for movement assessment, it is important to have a clear understanding of the effect of different marker sets and segment models in use.