0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Anatomical and Functional Hip Joint Center Methods: The Effects of Activity Type, Gender, and Proximal Reference Segment

[+] Author and Article Information
C. A. McGibbon

Institute of Biomedical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
25 Dineen Drive, P.O. Box 4400,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada;
Faculty of Kinesiology,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
e-mail: cmcgibb@unb.ca

J. Fowler, S. Chase, K. Steeves

Institute of Biomedical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada;
Faculty of Kinesiology,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada

J. Landry

Institute of Biomedical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada

A. Mohamed

Institute of Biomedical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 2, 2014; final manuscript received November 18, 2015; published online December 8, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kenneth Fischer.

J Biomech Eng 138(1), 011004 (Dec 08, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1433; doi: 10.1115/1.4032054 History: Received September 02, 2014; Revised November 18, 2015

Accurate hip joint center (HJC) location is critical when studying hip joint biomechanics. The HJC is often determined from anatomical methods, but functional methods are becoming increasingly popular. Several studies have examined these methods using simulations and in vivo gait data, but none has studied high-range of motion activities, such a chair rise, nor has HJC prediction been compared between males and females. Furthermore, anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) marker visibility during chair rise can be problematic, requiring a sacral cluster as an alternative proximal segment; but functional HJC has not been explored using this approach. For this study, the quality of HJC measurement was based on the joint gap error (JGE), which is the difference in global HJC between proximal and distal reference segments. The aims of the present study were to: (1) determine if JGE varies between pelvic and sacral referenced HJC for functional and anatomical methods, (2) investigate which functional calibration motion results in the lowest JGE and if the JGE varies depending on movement type (gait versus chair rise) and gender, and (3) assess whether the functional HJC calibration results in lower JGE than commonly used anatomical approaches and if it varies with movement type and gender. Data were collected on 39 healthy adults (19 males and 20 females) aged 14–50 yr old. Participants performed four hip “calibration” tests (arc, cross, star, and star-arc), as well as gait and chair rise (activities of daily living (ADL)). Two common anatomical methods were used to estimate HJC and were compared to HJC computed using a published functional method with the calibration motions above, when using pelvis or sacral cluster as the proximal reference. For ADL trials, functional methods resulted in lower JGE (12–19 mm) compared to anatomical methods (13–34 mm). It was also found that women had significantly higher JGE compared to men and JGE was significantly higher for chair rise compared to gait, across all methods. JGE for sacrum referenced HJC was consistently higher than for the pelvis, but only by 2.5 mm. The results indicate that dynamic hip range of movement and gender are significant factors in HJC quality. The findings also suggest that a rigid sacral cluster for HJC estimation is an acceptable alternative for relying solely on traditional pelvis markers.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Graphical representation of the work flow for statistical testing of each of the three research questions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Graphic showing pelvis and leg marker locations used in the study. All markers had diameter of 14 mm and were attached with double-sided tape to skin; the exception was the sacrum markers which were mounted on a small rigid plastic plate and attached to sacrum such that the inferior markers approximated the PSIS locations. Markers' names correspond to anatomical locations as follows: R/LASIS = right/left ASIS; R/LSacral = right/left sacrum approximately at PSIS; MSacral = midsacrum superior to right and left PSIS; R/LThighUpp = right/left thigh anterior superior marker; R/LThighLow = right/left thigh anterior inferior marker; and R/LThighLat = right/left thigh lateral marker. The other anatomical markers were not used for the present study, but are consistent with the naming convention recommended by the International Society of Biomechanics.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of the kinematic model used in the current study, adapted from the SCoRe method described by Ehrig et al. [10], with the addition of a proximal sacrum reference cluster and coordinate system. Given the relative position proximal and distal segments (DP0), the SCoRe method finds the vectors PHJC and DHJC that are static in their respective coordinate system and that minimize the JGE.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In