{"title":"了解多节足模型之间的设计差异及其对关节运动结果的影响","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Multisegmented foot models (MSFMs) are used to capture data of specific regions of the foot instead of representing the foot as a single, rigid segment. It has been documented that different MSFMs do not yield the same joint kinematic data, but there is little information available regarding their use for kinetic analysis. We compared the moment and power at the tibiotalar, midtarsal, and metatarsophalangeal joints of four MSFMs using motion capture data of young adult runners during stance phase of barefoot walking and jogging. Of these models, three were previously validated: the Oxford, Milwaukee, and Ghent Foot Models. One model was developed based upon literature review of existing models: the “Vogel” model. We performed statistical parametric mapping comparing joint measurements from each model to the corresponding results from the Oxford model, the most heavily studied MSFM. We found that the Oxford, Milwaukee, Vogel, and Ghent Foot Models do not provide the same kinetic results. The differences in segment definitions impact the degrees of freedom in a manner that alters the measured kinematic function of the foot, which in turn impacts the kinetic results. The results of this study capture the variability in performance of MSFMs as it relates to kinetic outcomes and emphasize a need to remain aware of model differences when interpreting results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the design differences between multisegmented foot models and their impact on joint kinetic outcomes\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Multisegmented foot models (MSFMs) are used to capture data of specific regions of the foot instead of representing the foot as a single, rigid segment. It has been documented that different MSFMs do not yield the same joint kinematic data, but there is little information available regarding their use for kinetic analysis. We compared the moment and power at the tibiotalar, midtarsal, and metatarsophalangeal joints of four MSFMs using motion capture data of young adult runners during stance phase of barefoot walking and jogging. Of these models, three were previously validated: the Oxford, Milwaukee, and Ghent Foot Models. One model was developed based upon literature review of existing models: the “Vogel” model. We performed statistical parametric mapping comparing joint measurements from each model to the corresponding results from the Oxford model, the most heavily studied MSFM. We found that the Oxford, Milwaukee, Vogel, and Ghent Foot Models do not provide the same kinetic results. The differences in segment definitions impact the degrees of freedom in a manner that alters the measured kinematic function of the foot, which in turn impacts the kinetic results. The results of this study capture the variability in performance of MSFMs as it relates to kinetic outcomes and emphasize a need to remain aware of model differences when interpreting results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024003385\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024003385","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding the design differences between multisegmented foot models and their impact on joint kinetic outcomes
Multisegmented foot models (MSFMs) are used to capture data of specific regions of the foot instead of representing the foot as a single, rigid segment. It has been documented that different MSFMs do not yield the same joint kinematic data, but there is little information available regarding their use for kinetic analysis. We compared the moment and power at the tibiotalar, midtarsal, and metatarsophalangeal joints of four MSFMs using motion capture data of young adult runners during stance phase of barefoot walking and jogging. Of these models, three were previously validated: the Oxford, Milwaukee, and Ghent Foot Models. One model was developed based upon literature review of existing models: the “Vogel” model. We performed statistical parametric mapping comparing joint measurements from each model to the corresponding results from the Oxford model, the most heavily studied MSFM. We found that the Oxford, Milwaukee, Vogel, and Ghent Foot Models do not provide the same kinetic results. The differences in segment definitions impact the degrees of freedom in a manner that alters the measured kinematic function of the foot, which in turn impacts the kinetic results. The results of this study capture the variability in performance of MSFMs as it relates to kinetic outcomes and emphasize a need to remain aware of model differences when interpreting results.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.