Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
Published on: July 2, 2021
Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
Chantal M Hulshof1, Wouter Schallig1, Josien C van den Noort2
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
None:
Segment coordinate systems (CSs) of marker-based multi-segment foot models are used to measure foot kinematics, however their relationship to the underlying bony anatomy is barely studied. The aim of this study was to compare marker-based CSs (MCSs) with bone morphology-based CSs (BCSs) for the hindfoot and forefoot. Markers were placed on the right foot of fifteen healthy adults according to the Oxford, Rizzoli and Amsterdam Foot Model (OFM, RFM and AFM, respectively). A CT scan was made while the foot was loaded in a simulated weight-bearing device. BCSs were based on axes of inertia. The orientation difference between BCSs and MCSs was quantified in helical and 3D Euler angles. To determine whether the marker models were able to capture inter-subject variability in bone poses, linear regressions were performed. Compared to the hindfoot BCS, all MCSs were more toward plantar flexion and internal rotation, and RFM was also oriented toward more inversion. Compared to the forefoot BCS, OFM and RFM were oriented more toward dorsal and plantar flexion, respectively, and internal rotation, while AFM was not statistically different in the sagittal and transverse plane. In the frontal plane, OFM was more toward eversion and RFM and AFM more toward inversion compared to BCS. Inter-subject bone pose variability was captured with RFM and AFM in most planes of the hindfoot and forefoot, while this variability was not captured by OFM. When interpreting multi-segment foot model data it is important to realize that MCSs and BCSs do not always align.
Related Concept Videos
Bone Markings
Articulating Projections
Articulating projections are found where two bones meet to form a joint. These structures are usually found at the ends of bones. The largest articulation is a rounded projection called the head, supported by a narrow neck at the ends of...
Bones of the Lower Limb: Tibia and Fibula
Ankle Joint

