Which method should we use to determine the hip joint center location in individuals with a high amount of soft tissue?

• Published in: Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) Vol. 115; p. 106254
• Main Authors: Horsak, Brian, Durstberger, Sebastian, Krondorfer, Philipp, Thajer, Alexandra, Greber-Platzer, Susanne, Kranzl, Andreas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2024
• Subjects: 3D free-hand ultrasound; Adolescent; Biomechanical Phenomena; Child; Female; Gait - physiology; Gait analysis; Gait Analysis - methods; Hip Joint - diagnostic imaging; HJC; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Joint angles; Joint moments; Male; Medical imaging; Obesity - physiopathology; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Reproducibility of Results; Ultrasonography - methods; HJC; Joint angles; 3D free-hand ultrasound; Medical imaging; Joint moments; Gait analysis
• ISSN: 0268-0033; 1879-1271; 1879-1271
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106254

This study investigated the most accurate method for estimating the hip joint center position in clinical 3D gait analysis for young individuals with high amounts of soft tissue. We compared position estimates of five regression-based and two functional methods to the hip joint center position obtained through 3D free-hand ultrasound. For this purpose, the data of 14 overweight or obese individuals with a mean age of 13.6 (SD 2.1 yrs) and a BMI of 36.5 (SD 7.1 kg/m2, range 26–52 kg/m2) who underwent standard clinical 3D gait analysis were used. The data of each participant were processed with five regression-based and two functional methods and compared to the hip joint center identified via 3D free-hand ultrasound. The absolute location errors to 3D free-hand ultrasound for each anatomical plane and the Euclidean distances served as outcomes next to their effects on gait variables. The data suggest that regression-based methods are preferable to functional methods in this population, as the latter demonstrated the highest variability in accuracy with large errors for some individuals. Based on our findings we recommend using the regression method presented by Hara et al. due to its superior overall accuracy of <9 mm on average in all planes and the lowest impact on kinematic and kinetic output variables. We do not recommend using the Harrington equations (single and multiple) in populations with high amounts of soft tissue as they require pelvic depth as input, which can be massively biased when a lot of soft tissue is present around the pelvis. •We tested various hip joint center estimation methods' accuracy in obese individuals.•We recommend using regression rather functional methods for this population.•Functional methods demonstrated lower accuracy and overall highest variability.•Hara's regression performed best in all planes with errors <8.2 (SD 7.6 mm).•Do not use pelvic depth in regression methods due to a bias related to soft tissue.