Comparison of sagittal plane gait characteristics between the overground and treadmill approach for gait analysis in typically developing children

Author:

Senden Rachel1,Marcellis Rik1,Meijer Kenneth2,Willems Paul2,Lenssen Ton1,Staal Heleen3,Janssen Yvonne456,Groen Vincent3,Vermeulen Roland Jeroen6,Witlox Marianne3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Physical Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

2. Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

4. Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Adelante, Hoensbroek, Limburg, The Netherlands

5. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

6. Department of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background Instrumented treadmills have become more mainstream in clinical assessment of gait disorders in children, and are increasingly being applied as an alternative to overground gait analysis. Both approaches differ in multiple elements of set-up (e.g., overground versus treadmill, Pug-in Gait versus Human Body Model-II), workflow (e.g., limited amount of steps versus many successive steps) and post-processing of data (e.g., different filter techniques). These individual elements have shown to affect gait. Since the approaches are used in parallel in clinical practice, insight into the compound effect of the multiple different elements on gait is essential. This study investigates whether the outcomes of two approaches for 3D gait analysis are interchangeable in typically developing children. Methods Spatiotemporal parameters, sagittal joint angles and moments, and ground reaction forces were measured in typically developing children aged 3–17 years using the overground (overground walking, conventional lab environment, Plug-In Gait) and treadmill (treadmill walking in virtual environment, Human Body Model-II) approach. Spatiotemporal and coefficient of variation parameters, and peak values in kinematics and kinetics of both approaches were compared using repeated measures tests. Kinematic and kinetic waveforms from both approaches were compared using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Differences were quantified by mean differences and root mean square differences. Results Children walked slower, with lower stride and stance time and shorter and wider steps with the treadmill approach than with the overground approach. Mean differences ranged from 0.02 s for stride time to 3.3 cm for step width. The patterns of sagittal kinematic and kinetic waveforms were equivalent for both approaches, but significant differences were found in amplitude. Overall, the peak joint angles were larger during the treadmill approach, showing mean differences ranging from 0.84° (pelvic tilt) to 6.42° (peak knee flexion during swing). Mean difference in peak moments ranged from 0.02 Nm/kg (peak knee extension moment) to 0.32 Nm/kg (peak hip extension moment), showing overall decreased joint moments with the treadmill approach. Normalised ground reaction forces showed mean differences ranging from 0.001 to 0.024. Conclusion The overground and treadmill approach to 3D gait analysis yield different sagittal gait characteristics. The systematic differences can be due to important changes in the neuromechanics of gait and to methodological choices used in both approaches, such as the biomechanical model or the walkway versus treadmill. The overview of small differences presented in this study is essential to correctly interpret the results and needs to be taken into account when data is interchanged between approaches. Together with the research/clinical question and the context of the child, the insight gained can be used to determine the best approach.

Publisher

PeerJ

Subject

General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3