Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The effect of intracortical bone pin application on kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics of walking gait
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1210-6449
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Gait & Posture, ISSN 0966-6362, E-ISSN 1879-2219, Vol. 52, 129-134 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
  • Gait analysis using bone anchored markers requires local anaesthesia, which may affect subjects gait patterns.
  • Kinetic and kinematic variables were collected using two protocols (skin vs. bone anchored markers).
  • No systematic differences were found between the two protocols.
  • We conclude that the validity of the recorded variables is not affected by local anaesthesia.

Bone anchored markers using intracortical bone pins are one of the few available methods for analyzing skeletal motion during human gait in-vivo without errors induced by soft tissue artifacts. However, bone anchored markers require local anesthesia and may alter the motor control and motor output during gait. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of local anesthesia and the use of bone anchored markers on typical gait analysis variables. Five subjects were analyzed in two different gait analysis sessions. In the first session, a protocol with skin markers was used. In the second session, bone anchored markers were added after local anesthesia was applied. For both sessions, three dimensional infrared kinematics of the calcaneus and tibia segments, ground reaction forces, and plantar pressure data were collected. 95% confidence intervals and boxplots were used to compare protocols and assess the data distribution and data variability for each subject. Although considerable variation was found between subjects, within-subject comparison of the two protocols revealed non-systematic effects on the target variables. Two of the five subjects walked at reduced gait speed during the bone pin session, which explained the between-session differences found in kinetic and kinematic variables. The remaining three subjects did not systematically alter their gait pattern between the two sessions. Results support the hypothesis that local anesthesia and the presence of bone pins still allow a valid gait pattern to be analyzed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 52, 129-134 p.
National Category
Medical Laboratory and Measurements Technologies
Research subject
Medicine/Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:gih:diva-4637DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.10.023ISI: 000398007900023PubMedID: 27898374OAI: oai:DiVA.org:gih-4637DiVA: diva2:1046446
Available from: 2016-11-14 Created: 2016-11-14 Last updated: 2017-04-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

The full text will be freely available from 2017-11-04 12:00
Available from 2017-11-04 12:00

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Arndt, Anton
By organisation
Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control
In the same journal
Gait & Posture
Medical Laboratory and Measurements Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 32 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf