Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2024; 37(08): 570-576
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772238
Special Focus Section

Using a Markerless Motion Capture System to Identify Preinjury Differences in Functional Assessments

Pat Laupattarakasem
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James L. Cook
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Missouri Orthopaedic Institute, Columbia, Missouri
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James P. Stannard 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Missouri Orthopaedic Institute, Columbia, Missouri
,
Patrick A. Smith 
4   Columbia Orthopaedic Group, Columbia, Missouri
,
Kyle M. Blecha
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Missouri Orthopaedic Institute, Columbia, Missouri
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Trent M. Guess
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
5   Department of Physical Therapy, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Rex L. Sharp
6   Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Emily Leary 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Functional assessments identify biomechanical issues which may indicate risk for injury and can be used to monitor functional recovery after an injury or surgery. Although the gold standard to assess functional movements is marker-based motion capture systems, these are cost prohibitive and have high participant burden. As such, this study was conducted to determine if a markerless motion capture system could detect preinjury differences in functional movements between those who did and did not experience a noncontact lower extremity injury (NCLEI). A three-dimensional markerless motion capture system comprised an area of 3 m × 5 m × 2.75 m was used. Participants were Division I collegiate athletes wearing plain black long-sleeve shirts, pants, and running shoes of their choice. Functional assessments were the bilateral squat, right and left squat, double leg drop vertical jump, static vertical jump, right and left vertical jump, and right and left 5 hop. Measures were recorded once and the first NCLEI was recorded during the first year after measurement. Two-factor analysis of variance models were used for each measure with factors sex and injury status. Preinjury functional measures averaged 8.4 ± 3.4 minutes capture time. Out of the 333 participants recruited, 209 were male and 124 were female. Of those, 127 males (61%) and 92 females (74%) experienced later NCLEI. The most common initial NCLEI was nonanterior cruciate ligament knee injury in 38 females (41.3%) and 80 males (62.0%). Females had decreased flexion and lower valgus/varus displacement during the bilateral squat (p < 0.006). In addition, knee loading flexion for those who were not injured were more than that seen in the injured group, and was more pronounced for injured females (p < 0.03). The markerless motion capture system can efficiently provide data that can identify preinjury functional differences for lower extremity noncontact injuries. This method holds promise for effectively screening patients or other populations at risk of injury, as well as for monitoring pre-/postsurgery function, without the large costs or participant burden.

Keywords

noncontact lower extremity injury - markerless motion capture system - body biomechanics - functional outcome


Publication History

Received: 08 May 2023

Accepted: 17 July 2023

Article published online:
16 August 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sheu Y, Chen LH, Hedegaard H. Sports- and recreation-related injury episodes in the United States, 2011-2014. Natl Health Stat Rep 2016; (99) 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Alonso JM, Junge A, Renström P, Engebretsen L, Mountjoy M, Dvorak J. Sports injuries surveillance during the 2007 IAAF World Athletics Championships. Clin J Sport Med 2009; 19 (01) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kennedy M, Dunne C, Mulcahy B, Molloy M. The sports' clinic: a one year review of new referrals. Ir Med J 1993; 86 (01) 29-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Doherty C, Delahunt E, Caulfield B, Hertel J, Ryan J, Bleakley C. The incidence and prevalence of ankle sprain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies. Sports Med 2014; 44 (01) 123-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cavazos GJ, Lawrence BH. The epidemiology, evaluation, and assessment of lateral ankle sprains in athletes. J Sports Med Ther 2021; 6 (02) 8-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Roos KG, Kerr ZY, Mauntel TC, Djoko A, Dompier TP, Wikstrom EA. The epidemiology of lateral ligament complex ankle sprains in National Collegiate Athletic Association sports. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (01) 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Meeuwisse WH, Tyreman H, Hagel B, Emery C. A dynamic model of etiology in sport injury: the recursive nature of risk and causation. Clin J Sport Med 2007; 17 (03) 215-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Renstrom P, Ljungqvist A, Arendt E. et al. Non-contact ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic Committee current concepts statement. Br J Sports Med 2008; 42 (06) 394-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hewett TE, Ford KR, Hoogenboom BJ, Myer GD. Understanding and preventing ACL injuries: current biomechanical and epidemiologic considerations - update 2010. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2010; 5 (04) 234-251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Krosshaug T, Andersen TE, Olsen OEO, Myklebust G, Bahr R. Research approaches to describe the mechanisms of injuries in sport: limitations and possibilities. Br J Sports Med 2005; 39 (06) 330-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mandelbaum BR, Silvers HJ, Watanabe DS. et al. Effectiveness of a neuromuscular and proprioceptive training program in preventing anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (07) 1003-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR. et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (04) 492-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bell KM, Onyeukwu C, Smith CN. et al. A portable system for remote rehabilitation following a total knee replacement: a pilot randomized controlled clinical study. Sensors (Basel) 2020; 20 (21) 6118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Halvorson RT, Castillo FT, Ahamed F. et al. Point-of-care motion capture and biomechanical assessment improve clinical utility of dynamic balance testing for lower extremity osteoarthritis. PLOS Digit Health 2022; 1 (07) e0000068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Singh JA, Dowsey M, Choong PF. Patient Endorsement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Total Joint Replacement (TJR) clinical trial draft core domain set. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18 (01) 111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020-2040 using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gupta AS, Pierpoint LA, Comstock RD, Saper MG. Sex-based differences in anterior cruciate ligament injuries among United States high school soccer players: an epidemiological study. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8 (05) 2325967120919178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, Smith ST, Campbell TM. Reducing the risk of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the female athlete. Phys Sportsmed 2009; 37 (03) 49-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brant JA, Johnson B, Brou L, Comstock RD, Vu T. Rates and patterns of lower extremity sports injuries in all gender-comparable US high school sports. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (10) 2325967119873059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ingram JG, Fields SK, Yard EE, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of knee injuries among boys and girls in US high school athletics. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (06) 1116-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rechel JA, Collins CL, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of injuries requiring surgery among high school athletes in the United States, 2005 to 2010. J Trauma 2011; 71 (04) 982-989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (10) 1756-1769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (12) 1320-1325.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mendiguchia J, Ford KR, Quatman CE, Alentorn-Geli E, Hewett TE. Sex differences in proximal control of the knee joint. Sports Med 2011; 41 (07) 541-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ford KR, Myer GD, Hewett TE. Valgus knee motion during landing in high school female and male basketball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35 (10) 1745-1750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bird MB, Mi Q, Koltun KJ. et al. Unsupervised clustering techniques identify movement strategies in the countermovement jump associated with musculoskeletal injury risk during US Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. Front Physiol 2022; 13: 868002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bodendorfer BM, Arnold NR, Shu HT. et al. Do neoprene sleeves and prophylactic knee braces affect neuromuscular control and cutting agility?. Phys Ther Sport 2019; 39: 23-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Colyer SL, Evans M, Cosker DP, Salo AIT. A review of the evolution of vision-based motion analysis and the integration of advanced computer vision methods towards developing a markerless system. Sports Med Open 2018; 4 (01) 24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Richard J. The measurement of human motion: a comparison of commercially available systems. Hum Mov Sci 1999; 5: 589-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smith J, Laskowski ER. The preparticipation physical examination: Mayo Clinic experience with 2,739 examinations. Mayo Clin Proc 1998; 73 (05) 419-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 DARI Motion = Motion Health. Dari. Accessed September 22, 2021, at: https://www.darimotion.com
    PubMed
  • 32 Mündermann A, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP. Secondary gait changes in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: increased load at the ankle, knee, and hip during walking. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52 (09) 2835-2844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cabarkapa D, Cabarkapa DV, Philipp NM, Downey GG, Fry AC. Repeatability of motion health screening scores acquired from a three-dimensional markerless motion. Capture System J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2022; 7: 65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Perrott MA, Pizzari T, Cook J, McClelland JA. Comparison of lower limb and trunk kinematics between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems. Gait Posture 2017; 52: 57-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nüesch C, Ismailidis P, Koch D. et al. Assessing site specificity of osteoarthritic gait kinematics with wearable sensors and their association with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): knee versus hip osteoarthritis. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21 (16) 5363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Outerleys JB, Dunbar MJ, Richardson G, Hubley-Kozey CL, Astephen Wilson JL. Quantifying achievable levels of improvement in knee joint biomechanics during gait after total knee arthroplasty relative to osteoarthritis severity. J Appl Biomech 2021; 37 (02) 130-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 DARI Motion. Collection Expert Manual version 1.0. Published online 2012
    PubMed
  • 38 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 1995; 1 (57) 289-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train 2007; 42 (02) 311-319
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Nelson AJ, Collins CL, Yard EE, Fields SK, Comstock RD. Ankle injuries among United States high school sports athletes, 2005-2006. J Athl Train 2007; 42 (03) 381-387
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Armitano-Lago C, Willoughby D, Kiefer AW. A SWOT analysis of portable and low-cost markerless motion capture systems to assess lower-limb musculoskeletal kinematics in sport. Front Sports Act Living 2022; 3: 809898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Klöpfer-Krämer I, Brand A, Wackerle H, Müßig J, Kröger I, Augat P. Gait analysis - available platforms for outcome assessment. Injury 2020; 51 (Suppl. 02) S90-S96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lam WWT, Tang YM, Fong KNK. A systematic review of the applications of markerless motion capture (MMC) technology for clinical measurement in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2023; 20 (01) 57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Yeadon MR, Pain MTG. Fifty years of performance-related sports biomechanics research. J Biomech 2023; 155: 111666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Knippenberg E, Verbrugghe J, Lamers I, Palmaers S, Timmermans A, Spooren A. Markerless motion capture systems as training device in neurological rehabilitation: a systematic review of their use, application, target population and efficacy. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017; 14 (01) 61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar