| dc.contributor.author |
Torres, BT |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Punke, JP |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Fu, Y |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Navik, JA |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Speas, AL |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Sornborger, A |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Budsberg, SC |
en |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2014-06-06T06:49:43Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2014-06-06T06:49:43Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2010 |
en |
| dc.identifier.issn |
01613499 |
en |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00666.x |
en |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://62.217.125.90/xmlui/handle/123456789/4746 |
|
| dc.subject.other |
animal |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
article |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
biological model |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
biomechanics |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
comparative study |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
dog |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Fourier analysis |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
gait |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
hindlimb |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
joint characteristics and functions |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
physiology |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Animals |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Biomechanics |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Dogs |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Fourier Analysis |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Gait |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Models, Biological |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Range of Motion, Articular |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Stifle |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Animalia |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Canis familiaris |
en |
| dc.title |
Comparison of Canine Stifle Kinematic Data Collected with Three Different Targeting Models |
en |
| heal.type |
journalArticle |
en |
| heal.identifier.primary |
10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00666.x |
en |
| heal.publicationDate |
2010 |
en |
| heal.abstract |
Objective: To model the kinematics of the canine stifle in 3 dimensions using the Joint Coordinate System (JCS) and compare the JCS method with linear and segmental models. Study Design: In vivo biomechanical study. Animals: Normal adult mixed breed dogs (n=6). Methods: Dogs had 10 retroreflective markers affixed to the skin on the right pelvic limb. Dogs were walked and trotted 5 times through the calibrated space and the procedure was repeated 5 days later. Sagittal flexion and extension angle waveforms acquired during each trial with all 3 models (JCS, Linear, and Segmental) were produced simultaneously during each gait. The JCS method provided additional internal/external and abduction/adduction angles. Comparison of sagittal flexion and extension angle waveforms was performed with generalized indicator function analysis (GIFA) and Fourier analysis. A normalization procedure was performed. Results: Each model provided consistent equivalent sagittal flexion-extension data. The JCS provided consistent additional internal/external and abduction/adduction. Sagittal waveform differences were found between methods and testing days for each dog at a walk and a trot with both GIFA and Fourier analysis. After normalization, differences were less with Fourier analysis and were unaltered with GIFA. Conclusions: Whereas all methods produced similar flexion-extension waveforms, JCS provided additional valuable data. Clinical Relevance: The JCS model provided sagittal plane flexion/extension data as well as internal/external rotation and abduction/adduction data. © Copyright 2010 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons. |
en |
| heal.journalName |
Veterinary Surgery |
en |
| dc.identifier.issue |
4 |
en |
| dc.identifier.volume |
39 |
en |
| dc.identifier.doi |
10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00666.x |
en |
| dc.identifier.spage |
504 |
en |
| dc.identifier.epage |
512 |
en |