The evolution of clinical gait analysis part III--kinetics and energy assessment

Historically, clinical applications of measurements of force and energy followed electromyography and kinematics in temporal sequence. This sequence is mirrored by the order of topics included in this trilogy on the Evolution of Clinical Gait Analysis, with part I [Sutherland DH. The evolution of clinical gait analysis part I: kinesiological EMG. Gait Posture 2001;14:61-70.] devoted to Kinesiological EMG and part II [Sutherland DH. The evolution of clinical gait analysis part II - kinematics. Gait Posture 2002;16(2):159-179.] to Kinematics. This final review in the series will focus on kinetics as it relates to gait applications. Kinematic measurements give the movements of the body segments, which can be compared with normal controls to identify pathological gait patterns, but they do not deal with the forces controlling the movements. As a major goal of scientifically minded clinicians is to understand the biomechanical forces producing movements, the objective measurement of ground reaction forces is essential. The force plate (platform) is now an indispensable tool in a state-of-the-art motion analysis laboratory. Nonetheless, it is not a stand-alone instrument as both kinematic and EMG measurements are needed for maximum clinical implementation and interpretation of force plate measurements. The subject of energy assessment is also given mention, as there is a compelling interest in whether walking has been made easier with intervention. The goals of this manuscript are to provide a historical background, recognize some of the important contributors, and describe the current multiple uses of the force plate in gait analysis. The widespread use of force plates for postural analyses is an important and more recent application of this technology, but this review will be restricted to measurements of gait rather than balance activities. Finally, this manuscript presents my personal perspective and discusses the developments and contributors that have shaped my thoughts and actions, and which I have found to be particularly noteworthy or intriguing. Just as in parts I and II, emphasis has been placed on the early development. All subtopics and important contributors, in this third and certainly most challenging of the review papers, have not been included. Some may find that my perceptions are incomplete. I accept responsibility for all deficiencies, as none were intended. Letters to selected contributors and their responses reveal how each contributor built on the work of others. The level of cooperation and sharing by these early investigators is extraordinary. Had they wished to withhold information about their own work, clinical gait analysis would have been severely delayed.