Comparison of the OpenPose system and the reference optoelectronic system for gait analysis of lower-limb angular parameters in children
Quantitative Gait Analysis (QGA) is the gold-standard for detailed study of lower-limb movement, angles and forces, especially in pediatrics, providing a decision aid for treatment and for assessment of results. However, widespread use of QGA is hindered by the need for specific equipment and traine...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research surgery & research, 2024-11, p.104044, Article 104044 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Quantitative Gait Analysis (QGA) is the gold-standard for detailed study of lower-limb movement, angles and forces, especially in pediatrics, providing a decision aid for treatment and for assessment of results.
However, widespread use of QGA is hindered by the need for specific equipment and trained personnel and high costs. Recently, the OpenPose system used algorithms for 2D video movement analysis, to determine joint points and angles without any supplementary equipment or great expertise. The present study therefore aimed to validate application of OpenPose for gait analysis in children with locomotor pathology, thereby circumventing the limitations of QGA.
The OpenPose system is as precise as QGA for measuring lower-limb angles in gait in children.
Gait analysis was studied prospectively, between January and July 2023, in 20 children: 13 boys, 7 girls; mean age, 13 years. There was no selection for pathology or use of walking aids. QGA was performed, measuring joint angles in the hips, knees and ankles. The same measurements were then made using the points obtained on OpenPose. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two methods.
There were only slight differences in angle measurements (in degrees) for the knees: right, 0.54 [−0.61; 1.71], p = 0.361; left, −1.09 [−2.16; 0.01], p = 0.051. Differences were greater for the hips (right, 9.32 [8.28; 10.35]; left, 7.54 [6.55; 8.54], p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1877-0568 1877-0568 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104044 |