A normative database of hip and knee joint biomechanics during dynamic tasks using anatomical regression prediction methods

• Published in: Journal of biomechanics Vol. 81; pp. 122 - 131
• Main Authors: Bennett, Hunter J., Fleenor, Kristina, Weinhandl, Joshua T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 16.11.2018; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Accuracy; Activities of daily living; Adult; Adults; Bell; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Databases, Factual; Davis; Female; Greater trochanter; Hip; Hip biomechanics; Hip database; Hip joint; Hip Joint - physiology; Humans; Inverse dynamics; Kinematics; Kinetics; Knee; Knee biomechanics; Knee Joint - physiology; Landing; Leg; Male; Medical imaging; Methods; Motion capture; Predictions; Regression; Regression Analysis; Running; Running - physiology; Three dimensional motion; Trochanter; Walking; Walking - physiology; Young Adult; Hip database; Greater trochanter; Hip biomechanics; Knee biomechanics; Bell; Davis
• ISSN: 0021-9290; 1873-2380; 1873-2380
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.10.003

Many methodologies exist to predict the hip joint center (HJC), of which regression based on anatomical landmarks appear most common. Despite the fact that predicted HJC locations vary depending upon chosen method, inter-study comparisons and inferences about populations are commonly made. The purpose of this study was to create a normative database of hip and knee biomechanics during walking, running, and single leg landings based on five commonly utilized HJC methods to serve as a reference for inter-study comparisons. Secondarily, we devised to provide comparisons of peak knee angles and hip angles, moments, and powers from the five HJC methods. Thirty healthy young adults performed walking, running, and single leg landing tasks at self-selected speeds (walking/running) and at 90% of their maximum jump height (landing). Three-dimensional motion capture and ground reaction forces were collected during all tasks. Five different HJC prediction methods: Bell, Davis, Hara, Harrington, and Greater Trochanter were implemented separately in a 6 degree of freedom model. Predicted HJC locations, direct kinematics, and inverse dynamics were computed for all tasks. Predicted HJC mediolateral, anteroposterior, and superior-inferior locations differed between methods by an average of 1.3, 2.9, and 1.4 cm, respectively. A database was created using the mean of all subjects for all five methods. In addition, one-way ANOVAs were used to compare triplanar peak angles, moments, and powers between the methods. The database of hip and knee biomechanics illustrates (1) variability between methods increases with more dynamic tasks (running/landing vs. walking) and (2) frontal and transverse plane hip and knee biomechanics are more variable between methods. Comparisons between methods found 38 and 16 main effect differences in hip and knee biomechanics, respectively. The Greater Trochanter method provided the most differences compared with other methods, while the Davis method provided the least differences. The database constructed provides an important reference for inter-study comparisons and details the impact of anatomical regression methods for predicting the HJC.