World Scientific
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Fri, Jun 26th, 2020 at 5pm (ET)

During this period, our website will be offline for less than an hour but the E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 4 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
No Access

GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD APPLIED TO THE KINEMATICS OF GAIT IN PREGNANT WOMEN

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219519416500846Cited by:2
    Previous
    Next

    Abstract

    Morphological changes are associated to pregnancy, such as weight gain and increased volume of the trunk. The soft tissue artifact can also increase with these characteristics and affect the real joint kinematics. The main objective of this study was to understand the effect of using three different constraining sets in the lower limb joints, in the amount of soft tissue artifact (STA) of pregnant women, in order to obtain the most appropriated joint set to be used in gait and in this population. The ankle, knee and hip joints were modeled respectively with the following characteristics: (1) Universal–revolute–spherical (URS), (2) spherical–revolute–spherical (SRS) and (3) spherical–spherical–spherical (SSS). The six degrees of freedom (6DOF) model was used as the basis for comparison and considered the one with the highest error associated to the STA. In pregnant women, the URS model seems to affect more the kinematic variables when compared with the 6DOF model. Assuming that the kinematic error associated with pregnant women is increased due to the STA, the URS model may be affecting more the angular kinematics of the knee joint. SSS model seems to be more appropriated to analyze gait in second trimester pregnant women.

    References

    • 1. A Cappello, P Francesco, L Palombara and A Leardini, Optimization and smoothing techniques in movement analysis, Int J Biomed Comput 41 (1996) 137–151. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 2. A Leardini, L Chiari, U Della Croce and A Capozzo, Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation, Gait Posture 21 (2) (2005) 212–225. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 3. A Cereatti, U Della Corce and A Capozzo, Reconstruction of skeletal movement using skin markers: Comparative assessment of bone pose estimators, J Neuroeng Rehabil 23 (2006) 36–37. Google Scholar
    • 4. JP Holden, JA Orsini, KL Siegel, TM Kepple, LH Gerber and SJ Stanhope, Surface movement errors in shank kinematics and knee kinetics during gait, Gait Posture 5 (3) (1997) 217–227. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 5. J Fuller, LJ Liu, MC Murphy and RW Mann, A comparison of lower-extremity skeletal kinematics measured using skin- and pin-mounted markers., Hum Movement Sci 16 (2–3) (1977) 219–242. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 6. RK Jensen, S Doucet and T Treitz, Changes in segment mass and mass distribution during pregnancy, J Biomech 29 (2) (1996) 251–256. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 7. R Pitkin, Nutritional support in obstetrics and gynecology, Clin Obstet Gynecol 19 (3) (1976) 489–513. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 8. N Taggart, R Holliday, W Billewicz, F Hytten and A Thomson, Changes in skinfolds during pregnancy, Br J Nutr 21 (2) (1967) 439–451. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 9. N Butte, K Ellis, W Wong, J Hopkinson and E Smith, Composition of gestational weight gain impacts maternal fat retention and infant birth weight, Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (5) (2003) 1423–1432. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 10. RA Block, LA Hess, EV Timpano and C Serlo, Physiological changes in the foot in pregnancy, J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 75 (1985) 297–299. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 11. M Brett and S Baxendale, Motherhood and memory: A review, Psychoneuroendocrinology 26 (2001) 339–362. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 12. M Calganeri, HA Bird and V Wright, Changes in joint laxity occurring during pregnancy, Ann Rheum Dis 41 (1982) 126–128. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 13. LC Chesley, Weight changes and water balance in normal and toxic pregnancy, Am J Obstet Gynecol 48 (1944) 565–593. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 14. RH De Groot, JJ Adam and G Hornstra, Selective attention deficits during human pregnancy, Neurosci Lett 340 (2003) 21–24. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 15. GA Dumas, JG Reid, LA Wolfe, MP Griffin and MJ McGrath, Exercise, posture, and back pain during pregnancy, Clin Biomech 10 (1995) 98–103. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 16. K Dunning, G LeMasters, L Levin, A Bhattacharya, T Alterman and K Lordo, Falls in workers during pregnancy: Risk factors, job hazards, and high risk occupations, Am J Ind Med 44 (2003) 664–672. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 17. B Hainline, Low back pain in pregnancy, Adv Neurol 64 (1994) 65–76. Google Scholar
    • 18. JL McNitt-Gray, Biomechanics related to exercise in pregnancy, Exercise in Pregnancy, 2nd edn. R ArtalRA MittelmarkRA Wiswell (eds.) (Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1991), pp. 133–140. Google Scholar
    • 19. CJ Snijders, JM Seroo, JG Snijder and HT Hoedt, Change in form of the spine as a consequence of pregnancy, Proc 11th Int Conf Med Biol Eng Ottawa, Canada, (1976) 670–671. Google Scholar
    • 20. P Ponnapula and J Boberg, Lower extremity changes experienced during pregnancy, J Foot Ankle Surg 49 (2010) 452–458. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 21. TW Lu and JJ O’Connor, Bone position estimation from skin marker coordinates using global optimization with joint constraints, J Biomech 32 (1999) 129–134. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 22. T Foti, J Davids and A Bagley, A biomechanical analysis of gait during pregnancy, J Bone Joint Surg 82-A (5) (2000) 625–632. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 23. M Anderson, D Benoit, M Damsgaard, D Ramsey and J Rasmussen, Do kinematic models reduce the effects of soft tissue artifacts in skin marker-based motion analysis? An in vivo study of knee kinematics, J Biomech 43 (2010) 268–273. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 24. TR Goodman and M Amurao, Medical imaging radiation safety for the female patient: Rationale and implementation, Radiographics 32 (6) (2012) 1829–1837. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 25. A Capozzo, A Cappello, U Della Croce and F Pensalfini, Surface-Marker cluster design for 3D bone movement reconstruction, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44 (12) (1997) 1165–1174. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 26. AL Bell, DR Pederson and RA Brand, Prediction of hip joint center location from external landmarks, Hum Mov Sci 8 (1989) 3–16. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 27. AL Bell, DR Pedersen and RA Brand, A comparison of the accuracy of several hip center location prediction methods, J Biomech 23 (1990) 617–621. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 28. CW Spoor and FE Veldpaus, Rigid body motion calculated from spatial coordinates of markers, J Biomech 13 (4) (1980) 391–393. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 29. DA Winter, The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological (University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, 1991). Google Scholar
    • 30. A Czaplicki, M Silva and J Ambrósio, Biomechanical modeling for whole body motion using natural coordinates, J Theoret Appl Mech 42 (4) (2004) 927–944. Google Scholar
    • 31. IW Charlton, P Tate, P Smyth and L Roren, Repeatability of an optimised lower body model, Gait Posture 20 (2) (2004) 213–221. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 32. JH Challis, A procedure for determining rigid body transformation parameters, J Biomech 28 (1995) 733–737. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 33. FE Veldpaus, HJ Woltring and LJMG Dortmans, A leastsquares algorithm for the equiform transformation from spatial marker co-ordinates, J Biomech 21 (1988) 45–54. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 34. GK Cole, BM Nigg, JL Ronsky and MR Yeadon, Application of the joint coordinate system to three-dimensional joint attitude and movement representation: A standardization proposal, J Biomech Eng 115 (1993) 344–349. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 35. R Baker, Pelvic angles: A mathematically rigorous definition which is consistent with a conventional clinical understanding of the terms, Gait Posture 13 (2001) 1–6. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 36. A Capello, R Stagni, S Fantozzi and A Leardini, Soft tissue artifact compensation in knee kinematics by double anatomical landmark calibration: Performance of a novel method during selected motor tasks, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52 (6) (2005) 992–998. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 37. S Duprey, L Cheze and R Dumas, Influence of joint constraints on lower limb kinematics estimation from skin markers using global optimization, J Biomech 43 (2010) 2858–2862. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • 38. B Gao and N Zheng, Investigation of soft tissue movement during level walking: Translations and rotations of skin markers, J Biomech 41 (2008) 3189–3195. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    Published: 20 October 2015