The precision and repeatability of a custom-made pointer device for determination of virtual landmarks in canine three-dimensional kinematics

S. Malek; N. M. M. Moens; G. J. Monteith

doi:10.3415/VCOT-11-05-0069

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(02): 102-108
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-05-0069

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

The precision and repeatability of a custom-made pointer device for determination of virtual landmarks in canine three-dimensional kinematics

Authors

S. Malek

¹Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
N. M. M. Moens

²Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
G. J. Monteith

²Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Summary

Placement of markers on anatomical landmarks represents a large source of error in three-dimensional kinematics. Our objectives were to test the accuracy and precision of a custom-made pointer and compare it to conventional skin markers in dogs. The pointer was first assessed by pointing at the surface of a spherical marker of known dimensions and position in space. Secondly, a point located cranio-distally to the lateral epicondyle was marked in 12 canine elbows with a Steinmann pin and reflective markers. Ability to locate a landmark was compared between the pointer and skin-mounted marker. The distance between experimental and true locations was compared between the two methods. A sphere was mathematically fitted through 29 collected points on the spherical marker. Centre, diameter and volume overlap of the fitted sphere were compared to that of the marker. A 0.729 mm bias was found indicating good accuracy. Residual values were small indicating good precision. The average distance between the true and experimental position of the anatomical landmarks were 9.55 ± 4.20 mm and 9.32 ± 3.28 mm for the pointer and the marker respectively. No significant differences were observed between the two methods. The pointer proved to be accurate and reliable for localizing virtual points and was at least equivalent to skin mounted markers for the detection of anatomical landmarks in the dog. It should prove useful in the localization of anatomical landmarks for kinematic analysis.

Keywords

Three-dimensional kinematics - pointer - calibration - virtual landmarks - dog

Full Text

References

References
1 Benoit DL, Ramsey DK, Lamontagne M. et al. Effect of skin movement artifact on knee kinematics during gait and cutting motions measured in vivo. Gait Posture 2006; 24: 152-164.
2 Cereatti A, Della Croce U, Cappozzo A. Reconstruction of skeletal movement using skin markers: comparative assessment of bone pose estimators. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006 3. 7.
3 Fuller J, Liu LJ, Murphy MC. et al. A comparison of lower-extremity skeletal kinematics measured using skin- and pin-mounted markers. Hum Mov Sci 1997; 16: 219-242.
4 Garling EH, Kaptein BL, Mertens B. et al. Soft-tissue artefact assessment during step-up using fluoroscopy and skin-mounted markers. J Biomech 2007; 40: S18-S24.
5 Lanovaz JL, Khumsap S, Clayton HM. Quantification of three-dimensional skin displacement artefacts on the equine tibia and third metatarsus. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 2004; 1: 141-150.
6 van Weeren PR, van den Bogert AJ, Barneveld A. Quantification of skin displacement in the proximal parts of the limbs of the walking horse. Equine Vet J Suppl 1990; 110-118.
7 Kim SY, Kim JY, Hayashi K. et al. Skin movement during the kinematic analysis of the canine pelvic limb. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 326-332.
8 Chateau H, Degueurce C, Denoix JM. Evaluation of three-dimensional kinematics of the distal portion of the forelimb in horses walking in a straight line. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 447-455.
9 Hobbs SJ, Richards J, Matuszewski B. et al. Development and evaluation of a noninvasive marker cluster technique to assess three-dimensional kinematics of the distal portion of the forelimb in horses. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 1511-1518.
10 Khumsap S, Lanovaz JL, Clayton HM. Verification of skin-based markers for 3-dimensional kinematic analysis of the equine tarsal joint. Equine Vet J 2004; 36: 655-658.
11 Korvick DL, Pijanowski GJ, Schaeffer DJ. Three-dimensional kinematics of the intact and cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle of dogs. J Biomech 1994; 27: 77-87.
12 DeCamp CE, Riggs CM, Olivier NB. et al. Kinematic evaluation of gait in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57: 120-126.
13 DeCamp CE, Soutaslittle RW, Hauptman J. et al. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 627-634.
14 Hottinger HA, DeCamp CE, Olivier NB. et al. Noninvasive kinematic analysis of the walk in healthy large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57: 381-388.
15 Leei JY, Kim G, Kim JH. et al. Kinematic gait analysis of the hind limb after tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and cranial tibial wedge osteotomy in ten dogs. J Ver Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med 2007; 54: 579-584.
16 Marsolais GS, McLean S, Derrick T. et al. Kinematic analysis of the hind limb during swimming and walking in healthy dogs and dogs with surgically corrected cranial cruciate ligament rupture. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 222: 739-743.
17 Cappozzo A. Three-dimensional analysis of human walking: Experimental methods and associated artifacts. Hum Mov Sci 1991; 10: 589-602.
18 Cappozzo A, Catani F, Croce UD. et al. Positionand orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1995; 10: 171-178.
19 Leardini A, Sawacha Z, Paolini G. et al. A new anatomically based protocol for gait analysis in children. Gait Posture 2007; 26: 560-571.
20 Cook JL, Tomlinson JL, Reed AL. Fluoroscopically guided closed reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the lateral portion of the humeral condyle: Prospective clinical study of the technique and results in ten dogs. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 315-321.
21 van Weeren PR, van den Bogert AJ, Barneveld A. A quantitative analysis of skin displacement in the trotting horse. Equine Vet J Suppl 1990; 101-109.
22 Cappozzo A. Gait Analysis Methodology. Hum Mov Sci 1984; 3: 27-50.
23 Chiari L, Della Croce U, Leardini A. et al. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 2: instrumental errors. Gait Posture 2005; 21: 197-211.
24 Benedetti MG, Catani F, Leardini A. et al. Data management in gait analysis for clinical applications. Clin Biomech 1998; 13: 204-215.
25 Donati M, Camomilla V, Vannozzi G. et al. Anatomical frame identification and reconstruction for repeatable lower limb joint kinematics estimates. J Biomech 2008; 41: 2219-2226.
26 Leardini A, Chiari L, Della Croce U. et al. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture 2005; 21: 212-225.
27 Manal K, McClay Davis I, Galinat B. et al. The accuracy of estimating proximal tibial translation during natural cadence walking: bone vs. skin mounted targets. Clin Biomech 2003; 18: 126-131.
28 Manal K, McClay I, Stanhope S. et al. Comparison of surface mounted markers and attachment methods in estimating tibial rotations during walking: an in vivo study. Gait Posture 2000; 11: 38-45.
29 Houck J, Yack HJ, Cuddeford T. Validity and comparisons of tibiofemoral orientations and displacement using a femoral tracking device during early to mid stance of walking. Gait Posture 2004; 19: 76-84.