English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Three-dimensional joint kinematics during canine locomotion are commonly measured using skin marker-based stereophotogrammetry technologies. However, marker-related errors caused by the displacement of the skin surface relative to the underlying bones (i.e., soft tissue artifacts, STA) may affect the accuracy of the measurements and obscure clinically relevant information. Few studies have assessed STA in canine limbs during kinematic analysis. The magnitudes and patterns of the STA and their influence on kinematic analysis remain unclear. Therefore, the current study aims to quantify the in vivo STA of skin markers on the canine thigh and crus during passive joint motion. The stifle joints of ten dogs were passively extended while the skin markers were measured using a motion capture system, and skeletal kinematics were determined using a CT-to-fluoroscopic image registration method.    Results  The skin markers exhibited considerable STA relative to the underlying bones, with a peak amplitude of 27.4 mm for thigh markers and 28.7 mm for crus markers; however, the amplitudes and displacement directions at different attachment sites were inconsistent. The markers on the cranial thigh and lateral crus closer to the stifle joint had greater STA amplitudes in comparison to those of other markers. Most markers had STA with linear and quadratic patterns against the stifle flexion angles. These STA resulted in underestimated flexion angles but overestimated adduction and internal rotation when the stifle was flexed to greater than 90°.    Conclusions  Marker displacements relative to the underlying bones were prominent in the cranial aspect of the thigh and the proximal-lateral aspect of the crus. The calculated stifle kinematic variables were also affected by the STA. These findings can provide a reference for marker selection in canine motion analysis for similar motion tasks and clarify the relationship between STA patterns and stifle kinematics; the results may therefore contribute to the development of STA models and compensation techniques for canine motion analysis.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1714-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantification of three-dimensional soft tissue artifacts in the canine hindlimb during passive stifle motion