Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics.

(1) Background: Traditional gait assessment methods have limitations like time-consuming procedures, the requirement of skilled personnel, soft tissue artifacts, and high costs. Various 3D time scanning techniques are emerging to overcome these issues. This study compares a 3D temporal scanning system (Move4D) with an inertial motion capture system (Xsens) to evaluate their reliability and accuracy in assessing gait spatiotemporal parameters and joint kinematics. (2) Methods: This study included 13 healthy people and one hemiplegic patient, and it examined stance time, swing time, cycle time, and stride length. Statistical analysis included paired samples t-test, Bland-Altman plot, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). (3) Results: A high degree of agreement and no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two measurement systems have been found for stance time, swing time, and cycle time. Evaluation of stride length shows a significant difference (p < 0.05) between Xsens and Move4D. The highest root-mean-square error (RMSE) was found in hip flexion/extension (RMSE = 10.99°); (4) Conclusions: The present work demonstrated that the system Move4D can estimate gait spatiotemporal parameters (gait phases duration and cycle time) and joint angles with reliability and accuracy comparable to Xsens. This study allows further innovative research using 4D (3D over time) scanning for quantitative gait assessment in clinical practice.

Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture Systems versus Marker-Based 3D Motion Capture Systems in Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: Marker-based 3D motion capture systems (MBS) are considered the gold standard in gait analysis. However, they have limitations for which markerless camera-based 3D motion capture systems (MCBS) could provide a solution. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the accuracy, validity, and reliability of MCBS and MBS. (2) Methods: A total of 2047 papers were systematically searched according to PRISMA guidelines on 7 February 2024, in two different databases: Pubmed (1339) and WoS (708). The COSMIN-tool and EBRO guidelines were used to assess risk of bias and level of evidence. (3) Results: After full text screening, 22 papers were included. Spatiotemporal parameters showed overall good to excellent accuracy, validity, and reliability. For kinematic variables, hip and knee showed moderate to excellent agreement between the systems, while for the ankle joint, poor concurrent validity and reliability were measured. The accuracy and concurrent validity of walking speed were considered excellent in all cases, with only a small bias. The meta-analysis of the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of walking speed, step time, and step length resulted in a good-to-excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.81; 0.98). (4) Discussion and conclusions: MCBS are comparable in terms of accuracy, concurrent validity, and reliability to MBS in spatiotemporal parameters. Additionally, kinematic parameters for hip and knee in the sagittal plane are considered most valid and reliable but lack valid and accurate measurement outcomes in transverse and frontal planes. Customization and standardization of methodological procedures are necessary for future research to adequately compare protocols in clinical settings, with more attention to patient populations.