Comparison of kinematics between Theia markerless and conventional marker-based gait analysis in clinical patients

Abstract

BackgroundMarkerless motion capture systems have the potential to make clinical gait analysis more efficient and convenient. Theia3D is a commercially available markerless system that may serve as an alternative to traditional gait analysis for clinical gait laboratories. Research QuestionWhat is the concurrent validity of markerless gait analysis using Theia3D compared to traditional marker-based gait analysis in pediatric clinical gait patients? MethodsThirty-six patients (20 male, age 2–25 years) with a range of diagnoses underwent clinical gait analysis with data being captured concurrently by a traditional marker-based motion capture system (Vicon Nexus) and a commercial markerless system (Theia3D). Multiple left strides were averaged for each subject, and the difference in kinematics (Theia - Vicon) was calculated over the gait cycle and evaluated using root mean square difference (RMSD), mean difference, and RMSD after subtracting the mean value across the gait cycle (RMSDoffset). Sub-analysis was performed for 25 patients with foot deformities, 9 wearing ankle-foot orthoses, and 6 walking with assistance (cane, crutches, walker, or handheld). ResultsKinematics showed similar patterns between the marker-based and markerless systems. RMSD was < 6° except for pelvic tilt, hip flexion, ankle inversion, foot progression, and transverse plane rotation of the hip, knee, and ankle. These measures mainly differed due to an offset between the curves. After adjusting for offsets, all RMSDoffset were < 6°. RMSD was larger for patients with foot deformities, wearing orthoses, or using assistive devices, but all RMSDoffset were still < 8°. In some cases, however, the markerless system had greater trial-to-trial variability, showed a larger knee varus “bump” in swing, or failed to track the subject. SignificanceThis study provides preliminary evidence of concurrent validity of Theia3D for pediatric patients with abnormal gait. However, some questions remain regarding identification of the knee axis and for patients with foot deformity or assistive devices.