$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Using dual fluoroscopy as a reference standard, the accuracy of skin-marker-based estimates of the hip joint center and the effect of soft-tissue artifact on kinematic and kinetic measurements were quantified22,23,24. The superior accuracy of dual fluoroscopy was then used to identify subtle differences in pelvic and hip joint kinematics between patients with FAIS and asymptomatic control participants25. Dual-fluoroscopy-based arthrokinematics were analyzed to quantify hip joint coverage, the relationship between morphology and kinematics, and bone-to-bone distances during dynamic motions26,27,28,29.
Before developing a protocol to investigate weight-bearing hip joint kinematics, the system was validated in cadaveric specimens with implanted metal beads during supine clinical exams to an accuracy within 0.5 mm and 0.6°30. Once validated, kinematics during clinical exams were measured using dual fluoroscopy in patients with FAIS and asymptomatic control participants. The results demonstrated that patients had altered motion in both internal rotation and adduction31.
Using weight-bearing dual fluoroscopy as a reference standard, the error in identifying the location of the hip joint center as well as the errors caused by soft-tissue artifact were then directly analyzed. Functional methods of identifying the hip joint center, i.e., the star-arc motion, were identified to be more accurate than predictive, landmark-based methods with errors of 11.0 and 18.1 mm, respectively32. Dynamic errors in the hip joint center were similar to those from standing; however, an additional 2.2 mm of spurious hip joint center movement was attributed to soft tissue artifact, with errors of more than 5 cm during dynamic movement for the greater trochanter marker23.
In addition to the errors in identification of the hip joint center, joint angles were underestimated by greater than 20° in internal-external rotation pivots23. While the underestimation of kinematics is cause for concern in itself, these errors reduced the measured range of motion and calculated kinetic variables during even a low range of motion activities, such as gait24. However, accurate dual fluoroscopy kinematic data can be difficult to incorporate into musculoskeletal models. Specifically, model marker errors were approximately 1 cm when running inverse kinematics with dual fluoroscopy-based landmark locations. While this error is relatively small compared to the 5 cm errors due to soft tissue artifact found for skin marker motion capture data, such error is an order of magnitude larger than that of bone positions measured by dual fluoroscopy.
In addition to the quantification of errors in traditional skin marker motion capture, the accuracy and methodology behind dual fluoroscopy provide the capability to evaluate even subtle differences in kinematics between cohorts, which may otherwise be hidden by the errors of the measurement technique. While differences in hip joint kinematics were not observed between patients with cam FAIS and asymptomatic control participants, differences in pelvic kinematics that would have been difficult to detect in the presence of soft-tissue artifact were identified25. This assessment required direct comparison between cohorts. Moreover, the potential relationship between kinematic variation and bone morphology, such as femoral anteversion, was also investigated27. These findings indicated the need for consideration of both morphology and biomechanics in the diagnosis of hip pathologies and the planning of conservative or surgical treatments.
A major hurdle in the use of biomechanical data in a clinical care setting is the difference in coordinate systems used by biomechanists and clinicians. In a biomechanics lab, the landmarks used to define coordinate systems of the femur and pelvis are driven by the ability to identify and track the landmarks from the skin surface during dynamic motion. In contrast, surgical coordinate systems are defined using bony landmarks identifiable during surgery with a patient supine or prone. The direct tracking of the femur and pelvis in dual fluoroscopy allowed for the evaluation of the influence of various coordinate system definitions on kinematic output29. The differences between coordinate system definitions resulted in kinematic offsets greater than 5°. However, these offsets were relatively consistent during motion and could be accounted for through bony landmark identification.
The combination of subject-specific bone morphology and kinematics — arthrokinematics — provides a joint-level assessment of form and function. For patients with DDH, femoral under-coverage is thought to be the cause of degeneration, and therefore, measurements of coverage are used heavily in diagnosis and surgical planning. Unfortunately, these measurements are often limited to static images, obtained with an individual supine, and only in two dimensions. Dual fluoroscopy-derived arthrokinematics were used to directly measure the variability in femoral coverage during dynamic activities26. Importantly, strong correlations between coverage in standing and coverage during gait when evaluated in entirety were found. Yet, regionalized coverage varied for both anterior and posterior regions of the femoral head even during the stance phase of gait.
Extra-articular impingement is a cause of pain at the hip and surrounding region and describes abnormal contact between the femur and regions of the pelvis outside the acetabulum, including the ischium and anterior inferior iliac spine. The dynamic nature of ischiofemoral impingement was evaluated through the comparison of clinical MRI-based measurements of ischiofemoral space and those during dynamic activities28. Therein, decreased space was observed dynamically in comparison to the standard clinical measures; sex-based differences, which could not be attributed to kinematic differences, were also identified. These methods could also be applied to evaluate joint space dynamically, providing insight into the variability of the position of the femoral head within the acetabulum and the variability across patient cohorts (Figure 8).

Figure 1: Overhead view of the dual fluoroscopy system positioned over the instrumented treadmill for a left hip. The system is positioned to minimize the effect of scatter and maximize the field of view. The image intensifiers are positioned approximately 100-110 cm from the source of the emitter and angled 50° from one another. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: View from the contralateral (right) side of a participant during dynamic activities. The participant is positioned between the two image intensifiers (II) such that the field of view of the dual fluoroscopy system is centered over the left hip joint. Level and incline walking, internal and external rotation pivots, and range of motion activities are performed on a treadmill platform. Abbreviation: FHJC = functional hip joint center. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Overhead view of the motion capture system relative to the dual fluoroscopy system. The optical motion capture system includes 10 infrared cameras and a single video-based camera and is positioned on a frame hanging from the ceiling. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Anterior and posterior view of the marker set used for skin marker motion capture. There are five plates with four markers each, which are positioned on the back, thighs, and shanks of the participants; all other markers are applied directly to the skin. Calibration markers are removed for dynamic motion capture. Marker labels prefaced with an R or L indicate markers on the right or left side of the body; marker labels suffixed with S, L, R, I, A, or P indicate marker locations on a marker plate, specifically superior, left, right, inferior, anterior, or posterior, respectively. Abbreviations: *SHO = shoulder; CLAV = center of clavicles; STRN = bottom of sternum; BACK_* = markers of plate placed on the lower back; *ILC = iliac crest; *ASI = anterior superior iliac spine; *PSI = posterior superior iliac spine; GRT_TRO = greater trochanter; *THI_* = markers of the respective plates placed on the thigh; *KNE_M = medial femoral condyle (knee); *KNE_L = lateral femoral condyle (knee); *TIB_* = markers of the respective plates placed on the shank (tibia); *ANK_M = medial malleolus (ankle); *ANK_L = lateral malleolus; *5TH = fifth metatarsophalangeal joint; *TOE = first metatarsophalangeal joint; *HEE = calcaneus (heel). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Landmarks and coordinate systems of the femur and pelvis. Landmarks of bilateral anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS; magenta) and posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS; cyan) and their mid-points are used to define the coordinate system of the pelvis. The center of the femoral head (orange) and bilateral femoral condyles (green), their mid-point, and a cylinder fit of the condyles are used to define the coordinate system of the femur (shown for left femur). The third axis of each bone is determined from the cross-product of the two displayed axes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Dual fluoroscopy images and associated markerless tracking of a left hip. Images are shown for maximum rotation of the external and internal rotation pivots (center), with the image from the anterior fluoroscope (left) and the posterior fluoroscope (right). Markerless tracking solutions for the pelvis (top) and femur (bottom) for each dual fluoroscopy image. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Dual fluoroscopy measured kinematics. Kinematics for 100 frames surrounding the maximum rotation (vertical dotted line) of external and internal rotation pivots for a representative participant. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Arthrokinematics-based surface distance between a left hemi-pelvis and femur. Arthrokinematics are shown for maximum rotation of the external and internal rotation pivot (center) with respective bone models measured with dual fluoroscopy (outer). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.