Gait kinematics differ by bout duration and setting.

BACKGROUND: Gait kinematics differ between settings and among young and older adults with and without knee osteoarthritis. Out-of-lab data has a variety of walking bout characteristics compared to controlled in-lab settings. The effect of walking bout duration on gait analysis results is unclear, and there is no standardized procedure for segmenting or selecting out-of-lab data for analysis. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do gait kinematics differ by bout duration or setting in young and older adults with and without knee osteoarthritis? METHODS: Ten young (28.1±3.5 yrs), ten older adults (60.8±3.3 yrs), and ten older adults with knee osteoarthritis (64.1±3.6 yrs) performed a standard in-lab gait analysis followed by a prescribed walking route outside the lab at a comfortable speed with four IMUs. Walking speed, stride length, and sagittal hip, knee, and ankle angular excursion (ROM) were calculated for each identified stride. Out-of-lab strides included straight-line, level walking divided into strides that occurred during long (>60 s) or short (≤60 s) bouts. Gait kinematics were compared between in-lab and both out-of-lab bout durations among groups. RESULTS: Significant main effects of setting or duration were found for walking speed and stride length, but there were no significant differences in hip, knee, or ankle joint ROM. Walking speed and stride length were greater in-lab followed by long and short bout out-of-lab. No significant interaction was observed between group and setting or bout duration for any spatiotemporal variables or joint ROMs. SIGNIFICANCE: Out-of-lab gait data can be beneficial in identifying gait characteristics that individuals may not encounter in the traditional lab setting. Setting has an impact on walking kinematics, so comparisons of in-lab and free-living gait may be impacted by the duration of walking bouts. A standardized approach for to analyzing out-of-lab gait data is important for comparing studies and populations.

Lower Extremity Inverse Kinematics Results Differ Between Inertial Measurement Unit- and Marker-Derived Gait Data.

In-lab, marker-based gait analyses may not represent real-world gait. Real-world gait analyses may be feasible using inertial measurement units (IMUs) in combination with open-source data processing pipelines (OpenSense). Before using OpenSense to study real-world gait, we must determine whether these methods estimate joint kinematics similarly to traditional marker-based motion capture (MoCap) and differentiate groups with clinically different gait mechanics. Healthy young and older adults and older adults with knee osteoarthritis completed this study. We captured MoCap and IMU data during overground walking at 2 speeds. MoCap and IMU kinematics were computed with OpenSim workflows. We tested whether sagittal kinematics differed between MoCap and IMU, whether tools detected between-group differences similarly, and whether kinematics differed between tools by speed. MoCap showed more anterior pelvic tilt (0%-100% stride) and joint flexion than IMU (hip: 0%-38% and 61%-100% stride; knee: 0%-38%, 58%-89%, and 95%-99% stride; and ankle: 6%-99% stride). There were no significant tool-by-group interactions. We found significant tool-by-speed interactions for all angles. While MoCap- and IMU-derived kinematics differed, the lack of tool-by-group interactions suggests consistent tracking across clinical cohorts. Results of the current study suggest that IMU-derived kinematics with OpenSense may enable reliable evaluation of gait in real-world settings.