Passive ankle and hindfoot kinematics within a robot-driven tibial movement envelope

Le, Anthony H.; Peterson, Andrew C.; Larrea Rodríguez, Jordy A.; Miyamoto, Takuma; Nickisch, Florian; Lenz, Amy L.

Affiliations

¹Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S Wasatch Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

²Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah, 1495 E 100 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

³Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, 50 S Central Campus Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

⁴Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijyo, Kashihara, Nara 6348521, Japan

⁵Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA

Abstract and keywords

Accurate description of individual bone kinematics is essential for understanding individual foot and ankle joint function and interactions. While invasive and noninvasive techniques, including robotic simulators, have advanced the direct measurement of individual joint kinematics during gait, efforts to quantify the passive adaptability of the foot and ankle remain limited. This study aimed to systematically describe the passive kinematics and ranges of motion of the ankle and hindfoot joints during prescribed planar tibial motions. Five fresh-frozen lower limb cadaveric specimens were attached to a 6-axis industrial robot, loaded to 25 % body weight, and prescribed tibial dorsi/plantarflexion, external/internal rotation, and varus/valgus alignment motions with various underfoot perturbations. Tibiotalar, talofibular, tibiofibular, subtalar, talonavicular, and calcaneocuboid joint kinematics were calculated using joint-specific anatomical coordinate systems. One-way repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni corrections (α = 0.05) compared joint rotations and range of motions (ROM) across various underfoot perturbations. Significant passive adaptive kinematic changes occurred in the hindfoot joints during prescribed dorsi/plantarflexion and external/internal rotation, indicated by functional shifts in hindfoot kinematics with different perturbations, while ROM remained consistent. In contrast, minimal passive adaptive motions were observed in the hindfoot joints during varus/valgus alignment, indicating a reduced role in foot mobility during coronal plane tibial motion. These findings emphasize the importance of accurately measuring individual bone kinematics, particularly the significant contributions of hindfoot joints to the passive mobility and stability of the foot and ankle.

Keywords: Foot and ankle; Passive kinematics; Robotics; Cadaveric simulations; Underfoot perturbations

Links

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112740

PubMed: 40334357

WoS: 001509229600001

History

Accepted: 2025-04-30

Online: 2025-05-1

Cited Works (14)

Year	Entry
2014	Kapron AL, Aoki SK, Peters CL, Maas SA, Bey MJ, Zauel R, Anderson AE. Accuracy and feasibility of dual fluoroscopy and model-based tracking to quantify in vivo hip kinematics during clinical exams. J Appl Biomech. June 2014;30(3):461-470.
2009	de Asla RJ, Kozánek M, Wan L, Rubash HE, Li G. Function of anterior talofibular and calcaneofibular ligaments during in-vivo motion of the ankle joint complex. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009;4:7.
2006	Bey MJ, Zauel R, Brock SK, Tashman S. Validation of a new model-based tracking technique for measuring three-dimensional, in vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics. J Biomech Eng. August 2006;128(4):604-609.
2007	Arndt A, Wolf P, Liu A, Nester C, Stacoff A, Jones R, Lundgren P, Lundberg A. Intrinsic foot kinematics measured in vivo during the stance phase of slow running. J Biomech. 2007;40(12):2672-2678.
2011	Whittaker EC, Aubin PM, Ledoux WR. Foot bone kinematics as measured in a cadaveric robotic gait simulator. Gait Post. April 2011;33(4):645-650.
2005	Wu G, van der Helm FCT, Veeger HEJ, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion, II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. May 2005;38(5):981-992.
1983	Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng. May 1983;105(2):136-144.
1960	Elftman H. The transverse tarsal joint and its control. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1960;160:41-46.
2024	Conconi M, Pompili A, Sancisi N, Durante S, Leardini A, Belvedere C. Foot kinematics as a function of ground orientation and weightbearing. J Orthop Res. January 2024;42(1):148-163.
2008	Lundgren P, Nester C, Liu A, Arndt A, Jones R, Stacoff A, Wolf P, Lundberg A. Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Post. July 2008;28(1):93-100.
2015	Pataky TC, Vanrenterghem J, Robinson MA. Zero- vs. one-dimensional, parametric vs. non-parametric, and confidence interval vs. hypothesis testing procedures in one-dimensional biomechanical trajectory analysis. J Biomech. May 1, 2015;48(7):1277-1285.
2021	Welte L, Kelly LA, Kessler SE, Lieberman DE, D’Andrea SE, Lichtwark GA, Rainbow MJ. The extensibility of the plantar fascia influences the windlass mechanism during human running. Proc R Soc B. January 27, 2021;288(1943):20202095.
1954	Hicks JH. The mechanics of the foot, II: the plantar aponeurosis and the arch. J Anat. 1954;88(pt 1):25-30.
2010	Pataky TC. Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. J Biomech. July 20, 2010;43(10):1976-1982.