Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKainz, H
dc.contributor.authorWesseling, M
dc.contributor.authorPitto, L
dc.contributor.authorFalisse, A
dc.contributor.authorVan Rossom, S
dc.contributor.authorVan Campenhout, A
dc.contributor.authorDe Groote, F
dc.contributor.authorDesloovere, K
dc.contributor.authorCarty, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorJonkers, I
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:15:26Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:15:26Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1879-2219
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.142
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381939
dc.description.abstract1.. Introduction: Gait analysis together with musculoskeletal modeling can be used to calculate muscle forces and assess pathological gait [1]. No generic, pediatric musculoskeletal models are available and, therefore, linear scaling methods are commonly used to personalize a generic, adult musculoskeletal model to the child’s anthropometry. 2. Research: How different are joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle force estimates of generic scaled models compared to medical-imaging based models in typically developing (TD) children? 3. Methods: 3D motion capture data and magnetic resonance images (MRI) of a TD boy (age: 8 years; height: 1.23 m; weight: 20.4 kg) were collected. Two musculoskeletal OpenSim models were created: (1) a scaled generic model (M_gen), and (2) a MRI-based model, which included subject-specific musculoskeletal geometry (M_mri) [2]. Joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle forces were calculated for each model using OpenSim 3.3 [3]. Joint kinematics, joint kinetics, muscle force waveforms, as well as femoral anteversion angle, neck-shaft angle and hip joint centre location were compared between both models. 4. Results: Joint kinematics and joint kinetics were surprisingly similar between the M_gen and M_mri with root-mean-square-differences below 2.8° and 0.05Nm/kg for joint angles and moments, respectively (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Depending on the analyzed muscle, differences in muscle forces varied substantially (up to 230% difference) between the M_gen and M_mri (Fig. 3). Femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angles differed between M_gen and M_mri by 12 and 5 degrees, respectively. The hip joint centre position differed between both models by 5, 15 and 6 mm in the anterior/posterior, superior/inferior and medial/lateral direction, respectively.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom223
dc.relation.ispartofpageto225
dc.relation.ispartofissueSupplement 1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalGait & Posture
dc.relation.ispartofvolume65
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMechanical engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchSports science and exercise
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4017
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode320299
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4207
dc.titleO 107 - Impact of subject-specific musculoskeletal geometry on estimated joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle forces in typically developing children
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorCarty, Chris P.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record