An in vitro simulation test using a designed well-targeted test rig has been regarded as an effective way to understand the kinematics and dynamics of the foot and ankle complex in the dynamic stance phase, and it also allows alterations in both internal and external control compared to in vivo tests. However, current simulators are limited by some assumptions. In this study, a novel foot and ankle bionic dynamic simulator was developed and validated. A movable 6-degree-of-freedom parallel mechanism, known as Steward platform, was used as the core structure to drive the tibia, with a tibial force actuator applied with different loads. Four major muscle groups were actuated by four sensored pulling cables connected to muscle tendons. Simulation processes were controlled using a software developed based on a proportional–integral–derivative control loop, with tension–compression sensors mounted on tendon pulling cables and used as real-time monitor signals. An iterative learning module for tibial force control was integrated into the control software. Six specimens of the cadaveric foot–ankle were used to validate the simulator. The stance phase was successfully simulated within 5 s, and the tibia loads were applied based on the body weight of the cadaveric specimen donors. Typical three-dimensional ground reaction forces were successfully reproduced. The coefficient of multiple correlation analysis demonstrated good repeatability of the dynamic simulator for the ground reaction force (coefficient of multiple correlation > 0.89) and the range of ankle motion (coefficient of multiple correlation > 0.87 with only one exception). The simulated ranges of the foot–ankle joint rotation in stance were consistent with in vivo measurements, indicating the success of the dynamic simulation process. The proposed dynamic simulator can enhance the understanding of the mechanism of the foot–ankle movement, related injury prevention, and surgical intervention.
WinterDA.Biomechanics and control of human movement. 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
2.
CarsonMCHarringtonMEThompsonN, et al. Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech2001; 34(10): 1299–1307.
3.
HuntASmithRMTorodeM, et al. Intersegment foot motion and ground reaction forces over the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech2001; 16(7): 592–600.
4.
TheologisTNHarringtonMEThompsonN, et al. Dynamic foot movement in children treated for congenital talipes equinovarus. J Bone Joint Surg Br2003; 85(4): 572–577.
StebbinsJHarringtonMThompsonN, et al. Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. Gait Posture2006; 23(4): 401–410.
7.
WrbaškićNDowlingJJ.An investigation into the deformable characteristics of the human foot using fluoroscopic imaging. Clin Biomech2007; 22(2): 230–238.
8.
WestbladPHashimotoTWinsonI, et al. Differences in ankle-joint complex motion during the stance phase of walking as measured by superficial and bone-anchored markers. Foot Ankle Int2002; 23(9): 856–863.
9.
LeardiniAChiariLDellaCU, et al. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture2005; 21(2): 212–225.
10.
TomeJNawoczenskiDAFlemisterA, et al. Comparison of foot kinematics between subjects with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction and healthy controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2006; 36(9): 635–644.
11.
ManalKMcClayIStanhopeS, et al. Comparison of surface mounted markers and attachment methods in estimating tibial rotations during walking: an in vivo study. Gait Posture2000; 11(1): 38–45.
12.
NesterCJonesRKLiuA, et al. Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers. J Biomech2007; 40(15): 3412–3423.
13.
LundgrenPNesterCLiuA, et al. Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture2008; 28(1): 93–100.
14.
PeetersKNatsakisTBurgJ, et al. An in vitro approach to the evaluation of foot-ankle kinematics: performance evaluation of a custom-built gait simulator. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2013; 227(9): 955–967.
15.
WhittakerECAubinPMLedouxWR.Foot bone kinematics as measured in a cadaveric robotic gait simulator. Gait Posture2011; 33(4): 645–650.
16.
SharkeyNAHamelAJ.A dynamic cadaver model of the stance phase of gait: performance characteristics and kinetic validation. Clin Biomech1998; 13(6): 420–433.
17.
DonahueSWSharkeyNAModanlouKA, et al. Bone strain and microcracks at stress fracture sites in human metatarsals. Bone2000; 27(6): 827–833.
18.
PetermanMMHamelAJCavanaghPR, et al. In vitro modeling of human tibial strains during exercise in micro-gravity. J Biomech2001; 34: 693–698.
19.
MichelsonJDHamelAJBuczekFL, et al. Kinematic behavior of the ankle following malleolar fracture repair in a high-fidelity cadaver model. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84(11): 2029–2038.
20.
ErdemirAHamelAJPiazzaSJ, et al. Fiberoptic measurement of tendon forces is influenced by skin movement artifact. J Biomech2003; 36(3): 449–455.
21.
MilgromCFinestoneAHamelA, et al. A comparison of bone strain measurements at anatomically relevant sites using surface gauges versus strain gauged bone staples. J Biomech2004; 37(6): 947–952.
22.
KiraneYMMichelsonJDSharkeyNA.Evidence of isometric function of the flexor hallucis longus muscle in normal gait. J Biomech2008; 41(9): 1919–1928.
23.
OkitaNMeyersSAChallisJH, et al. An objective evaluation of a segmented foot model. Gait Posture2009; 30(1): 27–34.
24.
OkitaNMeyersSAChallisJH, et al. Segmental motion of forefoot and hindfoot as a diagnostic tool. J Biomech2013; 46(15): 2578–2585.
25.
NesterCJLiuAMWardE, et al. In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model. J Biomech2007; 40(9): 1927–1937.
26.
NesterCJLiuAMWardE, et al. Error in the description of foot kinematics due to violation of rigid body assumptions. J Biomech2010; 43(4): 666–672.
27.
KimKJKitaokaHBLuoZP, et al. In vitro simulation of the stance in human gait. J Muscul Res2001; 5(2): 113–121.
28.
WatanabeKKitaokaHBFujiiT, et al. Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and flatfoot: analysis with simulated walking. Gait Posture2013; 37(2): 264–268.
29.
BurgJPeetersKNatsakisT, et al. In vitro analysis of muscle activity illustrates mediolateral decoupling of hind and mid foot bone motion. Gait Posture2013; 38(1): 56–61.
30.
NatsakisTBurgJDereymaekerG, et al. Insertion of a pressure sensing array minimally affects hindfoot bone kinematics. J Foot Ankle Res2015; 8(1): 24.
31.
NatsakisTBurgJDereymaekerG, et al. Inertial control as novel technique for in vitro gait simulations. J Biomech2015; 48(2): 392–395.
32.
AubinPMCowleyMSLedouxWR.Gait simulation via a 6-DOF parallel robot with iterative learning control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2008; 55(3): 1237–1240.
33.
BayomyAFAubinPMSangeorzanBJ, et al. Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint: a robotic cadaver study of the dorsiflexion angle. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92(8): 1754–1764.
34.
JacksonLTAubinPMCowleyMS, et al. A robotic cadaveric flatfoot analysis of stance phase. J Biomech Eng2011; 133(5): 051005.
35.
AubinPMWhittakerELedouxWR.A robotic cadaveric gait simulator with fuzzy logic vertical ground reaction force control. IEEE Trans Robot2012; 28(1): 246–255.
36.
WeberJRAubinPMLedouxWR, et al. Second metatarsal length is positively correlated with increased pressure and medial deviation of the second toe in a robotic cadaveric simulation of gait. Foot Ankle Int2012; 33(4): 312–319.
37.
VaudreuilNJLedouxWRRoushGC, et al. Comparison of transfer sites for flexor digitorum longus in a cadaveric adult acquired flatfoot model. J Orthop Res2014; 32(1): 102–109.
38.
TraskDJLedouxWRWhittakerEC, et al. Second metatarsal osteotomies for metatarsalgia: a robotic cadaveric study of the effect of osteotomy plane and metatarsal shortening on plantar pressure. J Orthop Res2014; 32(3): 385–393.
39.
HurschlerCEmmerichJWülkerN.In vitro simulation of stance phase gait part i: model verification. Foot Ankle Int2003; 24(8): 614–622.
40.
WülkerNHurschlerCEmmerichJ.In vitro simulation of stance phase gait part ii: simulated anterior tibial tendon dysfunction and potential compensation. Foot Ankle Int2003; 24(8): 623–629.
41.
LeeDGDavisBL.Assessment of the effects of diabetes on midfoot joint pressures using a robotic gait simulator. Foot Ankle Intl2009; 30(8): 767–772.
42.
NobleLDJrColbrunnRWLeeDG, et al. Design and validation of a general purpose robotic testing system for musculoskeletal applications. J Biomech Eng2010; 132(2): 025001.
43.
BogeyRAPerryJGitterAJ.An EMG-to-force processing approach for determining ankle muscle forces during normal human gait. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2005; 13(3): 302–310.
44.
FluitRAndersenMSKolkS, et al. Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during various activities of daily living. J Biomech2014; 47(10): 2321–2329.
45.
ItoKHosodaKShimizuM, et al. Direct assessment of 3D foot bone kinematics using biplanar X-ray fluoroscopy and an automatic model registration method. J Foot Ankle Res2015; 8(1): 21.
46.
ShiDWangDWangC, et al. A novel, inexpensive and easy to use tendon clamp for in vitro biomechanical testing. Med Eng Phys2012; 34: 516–520.
47.
KadabaMPRamakrishnanHKWoottenME, et al. Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res1989; 7(6): 849–860.
48.
GuoQShiGWangD, et al. Iterative learning based output feedback control for electro-hydraulic loading system of a gait simulator. Mechatronics2018; 54: 110–120.
49.
HuntAESmithRMTorodeM.Extrinsic muscle activity, foot motion and ankle joint moments during the stance phase of walking. Foot Ankle Int2001; 22(1): 31–41.
