Circumduction of the hindfoot does not occur primarily in one of the traditional anatomic planes and can be difficult to describe precisely. The purpose of this study was to measure foot bone motion quickly and objectively to subsequently characterize differences among feet of varying shapes. As such, we have developed a quantitative characterization of foot bone motion during circumduction using electromagnetic tracking sensors. Five of these sensors were attached to the foot on specific bony landmarks, and one was attached to a footplate. The lower leg was held by padded clamps in a custom non-ferrous jig, and the foot was moved through a full range of circumduction. To describe the motion of the bones of the foot during circumduction, the sensor positions were fitted to 2D ellipses and 3D curves. A repeatability study on multiple feet (n = 7) demonstrated that multiple raters (n = 3) introduced more error than a single rater; therefore, a single rater was used for all subsequent data collection. Results from five neutrally aligned subjects demonstrated that bone motion was quantifiable by fitted ellipse parameters. Additional modeling with a paraboloid surface described the motion with improved accuracy. A further reduction in error was obtained using a 3D eighth-order Fourier series expansion fit. This method holds promise as a means for characterizing differences in foot bone motion among foot types during a clinical exam.
ManterJT.Movements of the subtalar and transverse tarsal joints. Anat Rec1941; 80: 397–410.
2.
InmanVT.The joints of the ankle. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1976.
3.
BahrRPenaFShineJ, et al. Ligament force and joint motion in the intact ankle: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc1998; 6: 115–121.
4.
KovaleskiJEHollisJHeitmanRJ, et al. Assessment of ankle-subtalar-joint-complex laxity using an instrumented ankle arthrometer: an experimental cadaveric investigation. J Athl Train2002; 37: 467–474.
5.
LundbergAGoldieIKalinB, et al. Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex: plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. Foot Ankle1989; 9: 194–200.
6.
LundbergASvenssonONemethG, et al. The axis of rotation of the ankle joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br1989; 71-B: 94–99.
7.
LundbergASvenssonOKBylundC, et al. Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex—part 2: pronation and supination. Foot Ankle1989; 9: 248–253.
8.
LundbergASvenssonOKBylundC, et al. Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex—part 3: influence of leg rotation. Foot Ankle1989; 9: 304–309.
9.
LundbergA.Kinematics of the ankle and foot. In vivo roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl1989; 233: 1–24.
10.
StindelEUdupaJKHirschBE, et al. 3D MR image analysis of the morphology of the rear foot: application to classification of bones. Comput Med Imaging Graph1999; 23: 75–83.
11.
StindelEUdupaJKHirschBE, et al. An in vivo analysis of the motion of the peri-talar joint complex based on MR imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2001; 48: 236–247.
12.
UdupaJKHirschBEHillstromHJ, et al. Analysis of in vivo 3-D internal kinematics of the joints of the foot [MRI analysis]. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1998; 45: 1387–1396.
13.
Marquez-BarrientosCLiuXCLyonR, et al. Correlation between anatomic foot and ankle movement measured with MRI and with a motion analysis system. Gait Posture2012; 36: 389–393.
14.
MakkiKBorotikarBGaretierM, et al. In vivo ankle joint kinematics from dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using a registration-based framework. J Biomech2019; 86: 193–203.
15.
SheehanFT.The instantaneous helical axis of the subtalar and talocrural joints: a non-invasive in vivo dynamic study. J Foot Ankle Res2010; 3: 13.
16.
FassbindMJRohrESHuY, et al. Evaluating foot kinematics using magnetic resonance imaging: from maximum plantar flexion, inversion, and internal rotation to maximum dorsiflexion, eversion, and external rotation. J Biomech Eng2011; 133: 104502.
17.
MoseleyLSmithRHuntA, et al. Three-dimensional kinematics of the rearfoot during the stance phase of walking in normal young adult males. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 1996; 11: 39–45.
18.
MannonKAndersonTCheethamP, et al. A comparison of two motion analysis systems for the measurement of two-dimensional rearfoot motion during walking. Foot Ankle Int1997; 18: 427–431.
19.
CarsonMCHarringtonMEThompsonN, et al. Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech2001; 34: 1299–1307.
20.
MacWilliamsBACowleyMNicholsonDE.Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture2003; 17: 214–224.
21.
MyersKAWangMMarksRM, et al. Validation of a multisegment foot and ankle kinematic model for pediatric gait. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2004; 12: 122–130.
22.
StebbinsJHarringtonMThompsonN, et al. Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. Gait Posture2006; 23: 401–410.
23.
TheurillatCPuntIArmandS, et al. Active ankle circumduction to identify mobility deficits in subacute ankle sprain patients. J Appl Biomech2018; 34: 1–6.
24.
KesslerSERainbowMJLichtwarkGA, et al. A direct comparison of biplanar videoradiography and optical motion capture for foot and ankle kinematics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2019; 7: 199.
25.
ItoKHosodaKShimizuM, et al. Direct assessment of 3D foot bone kinematics using biplanar X-ray fluoroscopy and an automatic model registration method. J Foot Ankle Res2015; 8: 21.
26.
NicholsJARoachKEFiorentinoNM, et al. Predicting tibiotalar and subtalar joint angles from skin-marker data with dual-fluoroscopy as a reference standard. Gait Posture2016; 49: 136–143.
27.
PitcairnSKromkaJHoganM, et al. Validation and application of dynamic biplane radiography to study in vivo ankle joint kinematics during high-demand activities. J Biomech2020; 103: 109696.
28.
CornwallMWMcPoilTG.Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. Foot Ankle Int1999; 20: 507–512.
29.
WoodburnJTurnerDEHelliwellPS, et al. A preliminary study determining the feasibility of electromagnetic tracking for kinematics at the ankle joint complex. Rheumatology1999; 38: 1260–1268.
30.
CornwallMWMcPoilTG.Motion of the calcaneus, navicular, and first metatarsal during the stance phase of walking. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc2002; 92: 67–76.
31.
LiuX-CEmbreyDTassoneC, et al. Foot and ankle joint movements inside orthoses for children with spastic CP. J Orthop Res2014; 32: 531–536.
32.
UmbergerBRNawoczenskiDABaumhauerJF.Reliability and validity of first metatarsophalangeal joint orientation measured with an electromagnetic tracking device. Clin Biomech (Bristol)1999; 14: 74–76.
33.
OlsonSLLedouxWRChingRP, et al. Muscular imbalances resulting in a clawed hallux. Foot Ankle Int2003; 24: 477–485.
34.
BlackwoodCBYuenTJSangeorzanBJ, et al. The midtarsal joint locking mechanism. Foot Ankle Int2005; 26: 1074–1080.
35.
WongYKimWYingN.Passive motion characteristics of the talocrural and the subtalar joint by dual Euler angles. J Biomech2005; 38: 2480–2485.
36.
PacelliLLGillardJMcloughlinSW, et al. A biomechanical analysis of donor-site ankle instability following free fibular graft harvest. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85: 597–603.
37.
YingNKimW.Use of dual Euler angles to quantify the three-dimensional joint motion and its application to the ankle joint complex. J Biomech2002; 35: 1647–1657.
38.
RomeroVAmaralJFitzpatrickP, et al. Can low-cost motion-tracking systems substitute a Polhemus system when researching social motor coordination in children?Behav Res Methods2017; 49: 588–601.
39.
LugadeVChenTEricksonC, et al. Comparison of an electromagnetic and optical system during dynamic motion. Biomed Eng (Singapore)2015; 27: 1550041.
40.
SorrientoAPorfidoMBMazzoleniS, et al. Optical and electromagnetic tracking systems for biomedical applications: a critical review on potentialities and limitations. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng2020; 13: 212–232.
41.
CappozzoACataniFLeardiniA, et al. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: experimental artefacts. Clin Biomech (Bristol)1996; 11: 90–100.
42.
ReinschmidtCvan den BogertAJLundbergA, et al. Tibiofemoral and tibiocalcaneal motion during walking: external vs. skeletal markers. Gait Posture1997; 6: 98–109.
43.
SieglerSUdupaJKRinglebSI, et al. Mechanics of the ankle and subtalar joints revealed through a 3D quasi-static stress MRI technique. J Biomech2005; 38: 567–578.
44.
TaubinG.Estimation of planar curves, surfaces, and nonplanar space curves defined by implicit equations with applications to edge and range image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell1991; 13: 1115–1138.
RomeKCowiesonF.A reliability study of the universal goniometer, fluid goniometer, and electrogoniometer for the measurement of ankle dorsiflexion. Foot Ankle Int1996; 17: 28–32.
47.
BronnerSAgraharasamakulamSOjofeitimiS.Reliability and validity of a new ankle electrogoniometer. J Med Eng Technol2010; 34: 350–355.
48.
MoriguchiCSatoTGil CouryH.Ankle movements during normal gait evaluated by flexible electrogoniometer. Braz J Phys Ther 11. Epub ahead of print June 2007. DOI: 10.1590/S1413-35552007000300006.
49.
OrendurffMSRohrESSangeorzanBJ, et al. An equinus deformity of the ankle accounts for only a small amount of the increased forefoot plantar pressure in patients with diabetes. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88-B: 65–68.
50.
McPoilTGCornwallMW.Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc2005; 95: 114–120.
51.
BurgesCJC. A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Data Min Knowl Discov1998; 2: 121–167.
