These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of sagittal plane gait characteristics between the overground and treadmill approach for gait analysis in typically developing children.
    Author: Senden R, Marcellis R, Meijer K, Willems P, Lenssen T, Staal H, Janssen Y, Groen V, Vermeulen RJ, Witlox M.
    Journal: PeerJ; 2022; 10():e13752. PubMed ID: 35898943.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Instrumented treadmills have become more mainstream in clinical assessment of gait disorders in children, and are increasingly being applied as an alternative to overground gait analysis. Both approaches differ in multiple elements of set-up (e.g., overground versus treadmill, Pug-in Gait versus Human Body Model-II), workflow (e.g., limited amount of steps versus many successive steps) and post-processing of data (e.g., different filter techniques). These individual elements have shown to affect gait. Since the approaches are used in parallel in clinical practice, insight into the compound effect of the multiple different elements on gait is essential. This study investigates whether the outcomes of two approaches for 3D gait analysis are interchangeable in typically developing children. METHODS: Spatiotemporal parameters, sagittal joint angles and moments, and ground reaction forces were measured in typically developing children aged 3-17 years using the overground (overground walking, conventional lab environment, Plug-In Gait) and treadmill (treadmill walking in virtual environment, Human Body Model-II) approach. Spatiotemporal and coefficient of variation parameters, and peak values in kinematics and kinetics of both approaches were compared using repeated measures tests. Kinematic and kinetic waveforms from both approaches were compared using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Differences were quantified by mean differences and root mean square differences. RESULTS: Children walked slower, with lower stride and stance time and shorter and wider steps with the treadmill approach than with the overground approach. Mean differences ranged from 0.02 s for stride time to 3.3 cm for step width. The patterns of sagittal kinematic and kinetic waveforms were equivalent for both approaches, but significant differences were found in amplitude. Overall, the peak joint angles were larger during the treadmill approach, showing mean differences ranging from 0.84° (pelvic tilt) to 6.42° (peak knee flexion during swing). Mean difference in peak moments ranged from 0.02 Nm/kg (peak knee extension moment) to 0.32 Nm/kg (peak hip extension moment), showing overall decreased joint moments with the treadmill approach. Normalised ground reaction forces showed mean differences ranging from 0.001 to 0.024. CONCLUSION: The overground and treadmill approach to 3D gait analysis yield different sagittal gait characteristics. The systematic differences can be due to important changes in the neuromechanics of gait and to methodological choices used in both approaches, such as the biomechanical model or the walkway versus treadmill. The overview of small differences presented in this study is essential to correctly interpret the results and needs to be taken into account when data is interchanged between approaches. Together with the research/clinical question and the context of the child, the insight gained can be used to determine the best approach.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]