Alternative Models for Pelvic Marker Occlusion in Cycling

Abstract

Bike fitting aims to optimize riders’ positions to improve their performance and reduce the risk of injury. To calculate joint angles, the location of the joint centers of the lower limbs needs to be identified. However, one of the greatest difficulties is the location of the hip joint center due to the frequent occlusion of the anterior superior iliac spine markers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to validate a biomechanical model adapted to cycling (modified pelvic model, MPM), based on the traditional pelvic model (TPM) with an additional lateral technical marker placed on the iliac crests. MPM was also compared with a widely used model in cycling, trochanter model (TM). Thirty-one recreational cyclists pedaled on a roller bike while the movement was captured with a 7-camera VICON system. The position of the hip joint center and knee angle were calculated and compared with the TPM continuously (along 10 pedaling cycles) and discreetly at 90° and 180° crank positions. No significant differences were found in the position of the hip joint center or in the knee flexion/extension angle between the TPM and the MPM. However, there are differences between TPM and TM (variations between 4.1° and 6.9° in favor of the TM at 90° and 180°; P < .001). Bland–Altman graphs comparing the models show an average difference or bias close to 0° (limits of agreement [0.2 to −8.5]) between TPM and MPM in both lower limbs and a mean difference of between −4° and −7° (limits of agreement [−0.6 to −13.2]) when comparing TPM and TM. Given the results, the new cycling pelvic model has proven to be valid compared with the TPM when performing bike fitting studies, with the advantage that the occluded markers are avoided. Despite its simplicity, the TM presents measurement errors that may be relevant when making diagnoses, which makes its usefulness questionable.