A multi-segment foot model based on anatomically registered technical coordinate systems: Method repeatability in pediatric feet

Several multi-segment foot models to measure the motion of intrinsic joints of the foot have been reported. Use of these models in clinical decision making is limited due to lack of rigorous validation including inter-clinician, and inter-lab variability measures. A model with thoroughly quantified variability may significantly improve the confidence in the results of such foot models. This study proposes a new clinical foot model with the underlying strategy of using separate anatomic and technical marker configurations and coordinate systems. Anatomical landmark and coordinate system identification is determined during a static subject calibration. Technical markers are located at optimal sites for dynamic motion tracking. The model is comprised of the tibia and three foot segments (hindfoot, forefoot and hallux) and inter-segmental joint angles are computed in three planes. Data collection was carried out on pediatric subjects at two sites (Site 1: n = 10 subjects by two clinicians and Site 2: five subjects by one clinician). A plaster mold method was used to quantify static intra-clinician and inter-clinician marker placement variability by allowing direct comparisons of marker data between sessions for each subject. Intra-clinician and inter-clinician joint angle variability were less than 4°. For dynamic walking kinematics, intra-clinician, inter-clinician and inter-laboratory variability were less than 6° for the ankle and forefoot, but slightly higher for the hallux. Inter-trial variability accounted for 2-4° of the total dynamic variability. Results indicate the proposed foot model reduces the effects of marker placement variability on computed foot kinematics during walking compared to similar measures in previous models.

► We present a new pediatric foot model utilizing static anatomical registrations. ► A plaster mold was used to ensure consistent foot position. ► Three clinicians modeled at separate dates to measure intra-clinician variability. ► Two clinicians modeled same subjects to measure inter-clinician variability. ► Intra-clinician and inter-clinician joint angle variability were less than 4°.