Differences in gait with age or knee osteoarthritis have been demonstrated in laboratory studies using optical motion capture (MoCap). While MoCap is accurate and reliable, it is impractical for assessment outside the laboratory. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) may be useful in these situations. Before IMUs are used as a surrogate for MoCap, methods that are reliable, repeatable, and that calculate metrics at similar accuracy to MoCap must be demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to compare spatiotemporal gait parameters and knee range of motion calculated via MoCap to IMU-derived variables and to compare the ability of these tools to discriminate between groups. MoCap and IMU data were collected from young, older, and adults with knee osteoarthritis during overground walking at three self-selected speeds. Walking velocity, stride length, cadence, percent of gait cycle in stance, and sagittal knee range of motion were calculated and compared between tools (MoCap and IMU), between participant groups, and across speed. There were no significant differences between MoCap and IMU outcomes, and root mean square error between tools was ≤0.05 m/s for walking velocity, ≤0.07 m for stride length, ≤0.5 strides/min for cadence, ≤5% for percent of gait cycle in stance, and ≤1.5° for knee range of motion. No interactions were present, suggesting that MoCap and IMU calculated metrics similarly across groups and speeds. These results demonstrate IMUs can accurately calculate spatiotemporal variables and knee range of motion during gait in young and older, asymptomatic and knee osteoarthritis cohorts.
Keywords: Motion capture; Range of motion; Sensors; Spatiotemporal variables.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.