Comparing the kinematic output of the Oxford and Rizzoli Foot Models during normal gait and voluntary pathological gait in healthy adults

• Published in: Gait & posture 2020-10, Vol.82, p.126-132
• Main Authors: Schallig, Wouter, van den Noort, Josien C., McCahill, Jennifer, Stebbins, Julie, Leardini, Alberto, Maas, Mario, Harlaar, Jaap, van der Krogt, Marjolein M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology; Biomechanics; Female; Foot - physiopathology; Foot kinematics; Gait - physiology; Gait analysis; Gait Disorders, Neurologic; Humans; Male; Multi-segment foot models; Statistical parametric mapping
• ISSN: 0966-6362; 1879-2219
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.08.126

•Both static and dynamic output differ between the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models.•Oxford foot model measures a larger range of motion in the hindfoot-shank joint.•Rizzoli foot model measures a larger range of motion in the forefoot-hindfoot joint.•Differences between the models are most pronounced in equinus and toe-out gait.•Careful consideration is warranted when comparing multi-segment foot model output. The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) and Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) are the two most frequently used multi-segment models to measure foot kinematics. However, a comprehensive comparison of the kinematic output of these models is lacking. What are the differences in kinematic output between OFM and RFM during normal gait and typical pathological gait patterns in healthy adults?. A combined OFM and RFM marker set was placed on the right foot of ten healthy subjects. A static standing trial and six level walking trials were collected for normal gait and for four voluntarily adopted gait types: equinus, crouch, toe-in and toe-out. Joint angles were calculated for every trial for the hindfoot relative to shank (HF-SH), forefoot relative to hindfoot (FF-HF) and hallux relative to forefoot (HX-FF). Average static joint angles of both models were compared between models. After subtracting these offsets, the remaining dynamic angles were compared using statistical parametric mapping repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests. Furthermore, range of motion was compared between models for every angle. For the static posture, RFM compared to OFM measured more plantar flexion (Δ = 6°) and internal rotation (Δ = 7°) for HF-SH, more plantar flexion (Δ = 34°) and inversion (Δ = 13°) for FF-HF and more dorsal flexion (Δ = 37°) and abduction (Δ = 12°) for HX-FF. During normal walking, kinematic differences were found in various parts of the gait cycle. Moreover, range of motion was larger in the HF-SH for OFM and in FF-HF and HX-FF for RFM. The differences between models were not the same for all gait types. Equinus and toe-out gait demonstrated most pronounced differences. Differences are present in kinematic output between OFM and RFM, which also depend on gait type. Therefore, kinematic output of foot and ankle studies should be interpreted with careful consideration of the multi-segment foot model used.