Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The three-dimensional kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in 6–10 year old typically developed children in the Cape Metropole of South Africa – a pilot study

BMC PediatricsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:200

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-016-0736-1

Received: 24 July 2015

Accepted: 24 November 2016

Published: 3 December 2016

Abstract

Background

Functional gait is an integral part of life, allowing individuals to function within their environment and participate in activities of daily living. Gait assessment forms an essential part of a physical examination and can help screen for physical impairments. No three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis studies of children have been conducted in South Africa. South African gait analysis laboratory protocols and procedures may differ from laboratories in other countries, therefore a South African data base of normative values is required to make a valid assessment of South African children’s gait. The primary aim of this study is to describe joint kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in South African children to constitute a normative database and secondly to assess if there are age related differences in aforementioned gait parameters.

Methods

A descriptive study was conducted. Twenty-eight typically developing children were conveniently sampled from the Cape Metropole in the Western Cape, South Africa. The 3D lower limb kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait were analyzed. The lower limb Plug-in-Gait (PIG) marker placement was used. Participants walked bare foot at self-selected speed. Means and standard deviations (SD) were calculated for all spatiotemporal and kinematic outcomes. Children were sub-divided into two groups (Group A: 6–8 years and Group B: 9–10 years) for comparison.

Results

A significant difference between the two sub-groups for the normalized mean hip rotation minimum values (p = 0.036) was found. There was no significant difference between the sub-groups for any other kinematic parameter or when comparing the normalized spatiotemporal parameters.

Conclusion

The study’s findings concluded that normalized spatiotemporal parameters are similar between the two age groups and are consistent with the values of children from other countries. The joint kinematic values showed significant differences for hip rotation, indicating that older children had more external rotation than younger children.

Keywords

  • 3D gait analysis
  • Walking
  • Children
  • Spatiotemporal parameters
  • Kinematics

Background

Humans walk an average of 10 000 steps per day [1]. Functional gait forms an integral part of life, allowing individuals to function within their environment and participate in activities of daily living. The importance of locomotion from a psychosocial point is often overlooked. It facilitates normal social interaction and participation in recreational activities [2, 3]. The ability to walk is one of the critical elements in measuring and improving quality of life and reflects the individual’s health status [2, 4].

Gait assessment is part of the physical examination and can help screen for a range of physical impairments and abnormalities [5]. Similarly, analysis of gait at an early age can help predict motor outcome in cerebral palsy [6]. Evidence shows that a better understanding of normal development may be useful in interpreting abnormal findings [7, 8]. Gait analysis can also be used as an outcome measure to evaluate the effect of an intervention such as the single event multi-level surgery for children with cerebral palsy [9].

Although gait analysis has been conducted in children since the 1980’s, surprisingly little is known about age related gait patterns in children with typical development [10]. The gait data of 85 healthy children (4–16 years) at self-selected walking speed were examined using the VICON Plug-In-Gait (PIG) model [11]. Gait cycles of thorax, spine and pelvis kinematics in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes were recorded, and stratified by age and normalized speed. The sagittal thorax and spine movements were found to be gradually and significantly associated with age, but less so with speed, so that with increasing age, children tended to lean their trunk forward relative to the pelvis. In contrast, the frontal and transverse parameters of spine and pelvic movements were found to be mainly dependent on speed, not age [11]. A 3D motion analysis study of fifty children between 7 and 11 years old using the ZEBRIS CMS 70 P system measured flexion (F), extension (E), abduction (abd) and adduction (add) angles of the hip joint, the F and E of the knee and ankle joints and foot rotations for each age group [12]. Their findings were consistent with other published literature reporting on joint kinematics and suggested that children 7–11 years old presented with adult-like gait patterns [1214].

Speed strongly influences other spatiotemporal parameters, joint kinematics and kinetics of walking gait in children aged 4–17 years [1416]. Van der Linden et al. [15] and Schwartz et al. [16] found that kinematics, kinetics and EMG readings corresponded strongly with speed. The kinetic values of peak propulsive forces were found in most of the joints of the lower limb during increased walking speeds, as well as significant differences in the kinematics of ankle dorsiflexion (DF), knee E and hip F and E ranges in the sagittal plane [15, 16]. EMG readings showed greater muscle activity at increased speeds for the hamstrings, rectus femoris and tibialis anterior muscles [15, 16]. In a South African based study of 200 children between the ages of 1 and 13 years, the study reported an increased speed as age increased. The data for children from 4–13 years of age were centred on the data for adults confirming that neuromaturation of gait patterns occurs from four years onwards and the authors concluded that speed is a reliable measure of gait maturation [17].

To the researchers’ knowledge, no studies describing the three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis of South Africa children have been conducted. Currently there exists no normative dataset for the gait parameters of typically developed children in South Africa. A normative database of typically developed South African children will provide a valid reference dataset to determine how gait is affected in children with gait abnormalities due to e.g. cerebral palsy which is highly prevalent in Africa [18]. Furthermore, a South African database of normative values is required to demonstrate that a South African gait analysis laboratory, protocols and procedures compares to international standards. It is known that gait laboratories from different countries have reported variability in gait patterns particularly hip rotation and foot progression angles. These differences could be due to the different marker placement or data processing protocols between laboratories [19]. Ferrari et al. [20] is one of the first studies that compared five different gait analysis protocols to assess inter-protocol variability. Prior to their study there had not been an emphasis on the standardization of gait analysis protocols between different laboratories, thus no gold standard for evaluation of gait. However, recently there has been an increase in studies measuring the reproducibility of data within and between gait laboratories. The primary aim of this study is to describe joint kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in South African children to constitute a normative database. Secondly we assessed if there are age related differences in the aforementioned gait parameters. We hypothesized that there will be no differences in gait parameters in children 6–8 years old compared to 9–10-year-old children.

Methods

Ethical considerations

Approval from Stellenbosch University Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained (S13/10/220). Parents / guardians of participants signed an informed consent form prior to data collection. Participants seven years and older signed an informed assent form once the procedure was explained and all their questions answered.

Study design and setting

A descriptive study was conducted at the Physiotherapy and FNB 3D Movement Analysis Laboratory, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

Population and eligibility

The study population included typically developed boys and girls between the ages of 6–10 years residing within the Cape Metropole of the Western Cape in South Africa. This geographical area was chosen due to easy accessibility. Boys and girls from varied ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, who attended mainstream schools or education centers and had good general health, were included in the study. Only children ten years and younger were eligible to participate as girls and boys start puberty around the ages of 10–11 and 12 years respectively and this stage is characterized by rapid skeletal growth and physical changes [21].

Children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Cerebral Palsy, Scoliosis, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Developmental Coordination Disorder, Duchene’s, hip dysplasia or any similar syndrome by a health care practitioner were excluded. Children with a BMI level >30 were unsuitable for this study and were also excluded [22]. If children sustained a recent (past six months) traumatic injury to the neuro-musculoskeletal system, complained of recurrent idiopathic musculoskeletal pain, or were unwell on the day of testing, they were also excluded from the study as it could potentially influence their normal gait patterns.

Sampling

Convenient sampling of centers was performed. Researchers approached local crèches (n = 2), after care facilities (n = 4) and primary schools (n = 3) and invited all eligible children to participate in the study. The sample size justification for this study was based on the primary aim i.e. to describe gait parameters of South African children and therefore aimed to include 30 participants as suggested by Billingham et al. [23]. We calculated the margin of error for the sample mean based on an estimated population standard deviation of 2 degrees [19]. At a 95% confidence level, we calculated that the margin of error of the sample mean would be 0.78 degrees if 28 participants are included.

Measurement instruments

The VICON motion analysis (MX T-series, Vicon Motion Systems Ltd, Oxford, UK) system with eight T-10 Vicon cameras and Nexus 1.4 116 software was used to capture walking trials. Kinematics were calculated per the PIG model [24]. A manual medium international standard goniometer (8") was used to evaluate the joint ranges of the lower limb. The VICON has demonstrated high accuracy and reliability and demonstrated to have less than a 1.5-degree error [25, 26]. An electronic scale was used to measure participants’ weight in kilograms (kg). Height was measured in millimeters (mm) using a T-bar tape measure. Leg length was measured in millimeters (mm), using a measurement tape from predetermined landmarks (anterior superior iliac spine and medial malleoli). A general health and activity questionnaire included questions on previous injuries, general health, as well as the type and frequency of sport the child participated in.

Study procedure

Once potential participants had been identified for the study, parents / guardians received written information about the study. They also received written informed consent forms and a general health and activity questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire enabled the researchers to screen potential participants for eligibility. Children, who were eligible to participate in the study, were scheduled for gait analysis during April – July 2014.

Participants were dressed in shorts and a sport top so that the anatomical landmarks were exposed. The children were asked to remain bare footed during the physical evaluation, calibration and gait analysis. The researcher conducted a standard physical evaluation on each participant. Each child’s lower limb joint ranges, which included: hip F, E, abd; add, internal rotation (int rot) and external rotation (ext rot); knee F and E; and ankle plantar flexion (PF), DF with knee straight and DF with knee bent, were measured using a medium international standard goniometer (8") to screen for major joint range discrepancies. Height, weight and leg length were measured.

For data capture, the lower limb PIG marker placement was used. The markers were placed by two trained laboratory technicians (on randomly selected days) for whom intra- and inter-person reliability had been established and deemed satisfactory [personal communications QA Louw]. Standard system and subject calibration procedures were performed. The walking procedure was explained to the participants and each had two practice walking trials. Participants were asked to walk the full length of the walkway (±20 m) six times at self-selected speeds. A walking trial was deemed successful if the child did not look around or veered from the walkway.

Data analysis

A validated numerical optimization method to correct for any displacement of the thigh markers from the true femoral frontal plane were used [2729]. This method is a functional approach in which the knee axis orientation is estimated based on the assumption of minimum variance in the frontal plane motion of the knee. This ensures that the knee axis estimate, and by implication the hip rotation parameter, is reliable and valid given the reality of soft-tissue-artefacts. Gap filling was performed using the standard Woltring filter supplied by VICON [30]. A validated foot velocity algorithm which detects foot contact and loss of foot contact using foot marker kinematics were used [31]. The events for foot contact and lowest vertical position of the pelvis were calculated automatically using Matlab Version R2012b (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). Data was filtered with a 4th-order Butterworth filter at a 10Hz cut-off frequency and segment and joint kinematics were calculated using the PIG-model. Data was exported to Matlab to extract the spatiotemporal parameters and the joint kinematics of the lower limbs. The spatiotemporal parameters were normalized using leg length, according to the following formulae: \( \mathrm{step}\ \mathrm{length}\ \left(\mathrm{meter}\right) = \frac{step\ length}{leg\ length} \); \( \mathrm{stride}\ \mathrm{length}\ \left(\mathrm{meter}\right) = \frac{stride\ length}{leg\ length} \); \( \mathrm{cadence}\left(\mathrm{steps}\ \mathrm{per}\ \mathrm{second}\right)\kern0.5em = \mathrm{cadence}\ \mathrm{x}\sqrt{\frac{leg\ length}{g}} \); \( \mathrm{walking}\ \mathrm{speed}\ \left(\mathrm{meter}\ \mathrm{per}\ \mathrm{second}\right) = \frac{speed}{\sqrt{leg\ length\ x\ g}} \) where g refers to the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 ms-2) [32, 33].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were used to describe the participants’ demographics and median and ranges were used to describe the outcome measures i.e. joint kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters. The data followed a skewed distribution and thus Mann-Whitney statistical tests were performed to determine significant differences between age groups for spatiotemporal parameters and joint kinematics. The joint kinematics were statistically analysed using the minimum and maximum values. We have conducted a Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney post hoc power analysis using G- Power version 3.1. Considering a significant level of p-value was ≤ 0.05, a difference of at least 5 degrees and a standard deviation of 5 degrees (considering the variability in the dataset), the statistical power was calculated to be 70%.

Results

Sample description

Twenty-eight children with mean age 8.6 years (±1.3), weight 32.8 kg (±12.4) and height 1.4 m (±0.1) participated in the study. The demographics of the children per age group are shown in Table 1. Eighteen Mix-raced children, seven Black children and three Caucasian children participated in the study.
Table 1

The mean values for weight, height and BMI for boys and girls per age group (n = 28)

BOYS

 

6 years (n = 0)

7 years (n = 2)

8 years (n = 3)

9 years (n = 4)

10 years (n = 3)

Weight (kg)

-

36.3

30.3

38.7

46.6

Height (m)

-

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.4

BMI

-

21.4

17.7

19.7

21.2

GIRLS

 

6 years (n = 3)

7 years (n = 1)

8 years (n = 2)

9 years (n = 4)

10 years (n = 6)

Weight (kg)

26.4

20.1

29.0

38.2

44.8

Height (m)

1.2

1.1

1.4

1.4

1.5

BMI

17.6

16.3

15.9

20.3

21.7

General health and activity questionnaire

None of the participants had any health problems, presented with developmental delays or motor problems or suffered recent injuries, illnesses or body pain in the past six months. Although all the children participated in sport or a recreational activity, a range of different activity levels were reported. The outcome ranged from playing two types of sport, 4 times a week to one type of sport, once a week.

Spatiotemporal parameters

The non-normalized spatiotemporal parameters for the whole group were 2.2 (1.85–2.41), 1.26 (1.15–1.55), 0.59 (0.55–0.69) and 1.16 (1.09–1.36) for cadence (steps per second), walking speed (meter per second), step length (meter) and stride length (meter) respectively. For the group, the normalized median values for cadence, speed, step length and stride length were: 0.81 (0.68–0.93), 0.48 (0.44–0.58), 0.83 (0.73–0.96) and 1.64 (1.45–1.90) respectively. There were no differences between boys and girls for the spatiotemporal parameters therefore the genders were combined in each age group. Due to the small sample size, number of participants per age group and no statistical significant differences in the spatiotemporal parameters between the 6–8 year olds and the 9–10 year olds, the five age groups were divided into two groups: Group A (6.0–8.11 year olds) and Group B (9.0–10.11 year olds) [11].

Table 2 presents the non-normalized and normalized median and range values for the spatiotemporal parameters of each age group. Table 3 shows the non-normalized and normalized median and range values for the spatiotemporal parameters for the two age subgroups (Group A and Group B) as well as the p-values indicating the statistical significance between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the younger and older children for all the non-normalized parameters. However, this significance did not persist when controlling for height as can be seen by the p-values for the normalized mean values.
Table 2

Spatiotemporal Parameters (non-normalized and normalized) for each age group

 

6 years (n = 3)

7 years (n = 3)

8 years (n = 5)

9 years (n = 8)

10 years (n = 9)

 

median

range

median

range

median

range

median

range

median

range

 

Non-normalized

Cadence (steps / sec)

2.42

2.25–2.68

2.34

2.18–2.38

2.21

1.98–2.72

2.18

1.85–2.39

2.16

1.93–2.41

Speed (ms-1)

1.26

1.09-1.45

1.14

0.88-1.27

1.16

0.90-1.38

1.34

1.15-1.49

1.32

1.18-1.55

Step Length (m)

0.53

0.48–0.56

0.49

0.42–0.56

0.53

0.46–0.60

0.62

0.59–0.66

0.62

0.54–0.69

Stride Length (m)

1.04

0.95–1.11

0.97

0.82–1.11

1.05

0.92–1.17

1.23

1.15–1.32

1.23

1.09–1.36

 

Normalized

Cadence

0.91

0.90–1.09

0.93

0.93–0.95

0.79

0.77–1.11

0.80

0.69–0.93

0.77

0.68–0.92

Speed

0.50

0.44–0.59

0.46

0.38–0.50

0.45

0.36–0.56

0.50

0.44–0.58

0.48

0.44–0.57

Step Length

0.83

0.75–0.90

0.79

0.73–0.86

0.79

0.71–0.85

0.85

0.80–0.96

0.82

0.73–0.87

Stride Length

1.63

1.48–1.79

1.56

1.49–1.72

1.55

1.39–1.69

1.68

1.60–1.90

1.61

1.45–1.74

Table 3

Spatiotemporal Parameters (non-normalized and normalized) for the two age subgroups

 

Group A

Group B

 
 

6–8 years (n = 11)

9–10 years (n = 17)

P-value

 

median

range

median

range

 
 

Non-Normalized

Cadence (steps per second)

2.34

1.98–2.72

2.18

1.85–2.41

0.020*

Speed (ms-1)

1.20

0.88–1.45

1.35

1.15–1.55

0.002*

Step Length (m)

0.53

0.42–0.60

0.62

0.55–0.69

<0.001*

Stride Length (m)

1.03

0.82–1.17

1.23

1.09–1.36

<0.001*

 

Normalized

Cadence

0.91

0.77–1.11

0.79

0.68–0.93

0.535

Speed

0.45

0.36–0.59

0.49

0.44–0.58

0.129

Step Length

0.79

0.71–0.90

0.83

0.73–0.96

0.056

Stride Length

1.54

1.39–1.79

1.64

1.15–1.90

0.055

*significant difference

Kinematic patterns and joint kinematics

The kinematic patterns of the pelvis, hip, knee, ankle and foot movements during a gait cycle are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Pelvis tilt, hip F/E, knee F/E and ankle DF/PF occur in the sagittal plane; pelvis obliquity, hip abd/add and knee abd/add occur in the frontal plane; and pelvis rotation, hip rotation, knee rotation and foot progression occur in the transverse plane.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Kinematics of the two sub-groups: a Pelvis Tilt, b Pelvis Obliquity, c Pelvis Rotation, d Hip Flexion/Extension, e Hip Ab/Adduction, f Hip Rotation

Figure 2
Fig. 2

Kinematics of the two sub-groups: a Knee Flex/Extension, b Knee Ab/Adduction, c Knee Rotation, d Ankle Dorsi/Plantarflexion, e Foot Progression

Figure 1 (a) – (e) shows minimum variation between the two age groups with a small standard deviation. However fig. 1 (f) demonstrates a larger variation between the two age groups.

Figure 2 (a), (b), and (d) also showed minimum variation, whereas fig. 2 (c) and (e) revealed a larger variation between the groups.

Tables 4 and 5 show the median and range values for the maximum and minimum values of the lower limb kinematics during the gait cycle respectively. There were no statistical differences between genders or between left and right sides for each of the joint angles. Thus, boys and girls and left and right sides were combined for the two age subgroups (Group A – 6–8 years; Group B – 9–10 years).
Table 4

The maximum values for the gait kinematics of the pelvis and lower limb kinematics for the two age groups

 

Group A

Group B

 
 

6–8 years (n = 11)

9–10 years (n = 17)

P value

 

median

range

median

range

Pelvis X

18.2

12.5–24.9

19.5

7.0–28.6

0.495

Pelvis Y

6.0

3.4–8.6

5.7

2.6–9.4

0.944

Pelvis Z

6.6

4.0–11.9

8.1

3.4–11.7

0.249

Hip X

43.6

41.8–51.5

46.2

35.2–57.6

0.196

Hip Y

7.2

4.5–11.0

8.4

4.8–11.1

0.438

Hip Z

2.5

−5.1–10.0

0.01

−9.7–5.8

0.115

Knee X

65.0

54.7–71.3

64.8

50.6–70.5

0.906

Knee Y

4.9

−3.1–11.8

2.6

−2.5–10.6

0.312

Knee Z

6.8

−0.1–13.2

5.4

−8.9–21.5

0.384

Ankle X

16.5

12.4–20.5

16.4

6.6–23.1

0.557

Foot Progression Z

−1.8

−17.8–4.8

−4.1

−18.7–5.5

0.525

(X) Sagittal Plane; (Y) Frontal Plane; (Z) Transverse Plane

Table 5

The minimum values for the gait kinematics of the pelvis and lower limb kinematics for the two age groups

 

Group A

Group B

 
 

6–8 years (n = 11)

9–10 years (n = 17)

P value

 

median

range

median

range

Pelvis X

15.2

11.0–20.4

16.4

3.0–24.3

0.495

Pelvis Y

−6.0

−8.7–−3.1

−5.9

−9.7–1.9

0.981

Pelvis Z

−6.6

−11.0–−3.3

−7.6

−11.2–2.5

0.115

Hip X

1.7

−5.8–8.4

2.9

−13.7–12.7

0.525

Hip Y

−7.7

−11.0–−3.4

−8.1

−13.1–2.8

0.981

Hip Z

−11.2

−19.9–−5.4

−17.0

−25.3–5.2

0.036*

Knee X

2.6

−2.6–9.4

6.5

−3.9–11.6

0.230

Knee Y

−4.7

−9.1–1.1

−7.1

−10.6–2.4

0.070

Knee Z

−11.3

−15.4–−3.8

−9.9

−23.6–3.6

0.869

Ankle X

−12.6

−22.4–−6.07

−11.8

−21.1–3.6

0.724

Foot Progression Z

−14.3

−25.9–−10.4

−16.0

−29.2–7.3

0.724

(X) Sagittal Plane; (Y) Frontal Plane; (Z) Transverse Plane

*significant difference

There was a statistical significant difference between the two groups for the mean hip rotation minimum values (p = 0.036), therefore Group B presented with more relative external rotation at the hip joint than Group A. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups for any other kinematic parameter.

Discussion

This is the first report on normative gait patterns of typically developed South African children. The findings of this study suggest that the kinematic patterns and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in typically developed children 6–10 years old are consistent with the published international literature which reported on the gait patterns of children in developed countries such as Australia, Norway, Germany, and China [11, 14, 3436]. The results are also in agreement with recent studies indicating that there are no significant differences in spatiotemporal parameters or kinematics between genders [8, 14, 37]. Moreno-Hernández et al. [37] suggests that it is not until the adolescent years when neurological and musculoskeletal maturity is reached, that gender differences may be notable. Children reach adult-like sensory integration at the age of 12 years and may be gender specific [38]. Other studies have concluded that a child’s gait will continue to evolve in terms of spatiotemporal parameters (step and stride length, speed and cadence, balance and percentage of support) until a child is fully grown due to the changes in anthropometric measurements [3941].

Chagas et al. [8] and Moreno-Hernández et al. [37] studied children between the ages of 6–13 years and reported a non-normalized mean cadence of 122.48 ± 13.83 steps/min and 117.9 ± 11.4 steps/min respectively. This compares well with our study. Our study has shown that non-normalized cadence was significantly lower (p = 0.02), the speed faster and the step and stride length longer for the older children (9–10 years) compared to the younger children (6–8 years). This concurs with Dusing and Thorpe [7] and Holm et al. [14] who also reported reduced cadence in older children compared to younger children. Consistent with the findings of the present study, Chagas et al. [8] and Moreno-Hernández et al. [37] reported no significant differences in normalized cadence when comparing age sub-groups of children. Comparisons between children and adults also revealed an on-going decrease in cadence as age increased [35, 42]. Cadence decreased with age when children, aged 5–13 years, were compared with young adults (mean age 19.7 years) [35]. Bovi et al. [42] compared children (6–17 years) with 20 adults and found no significant difference in cadence between the two groups. This could be since the younger group included adolescents, who already showed matured gait patterns and adult-like sensory-motor integration [13, 38]. Step and stride length increased with age, but was not significantly different between the two age sub-groups of our study. Both findings agree with published studies [7, 14, 34, 35, 42]. Non-normalized step and stride length increased with age, but normalized values remained unchanged [7, 14]. Although speed affects cadence, step length, stride length and other spatiotemporal parameters, as well as kinematics during gait, our study did not show a significant difference in walking speed between younger and older children [11, 15, 16, 43]. The median speed for the group in the current study compares well with international research based on Mexican children (6–13 years), Australian children (5–13 years) and American children (9–11 years) who walked at a self-selected speed of 1.13(±0.19) ms-1, 1.37(±0.17) ms-1 and 1.22 (±0.04) ms-1 respectively [35, 37, 44]. Thus, 6–10-year-old South African children’s spatiotemporal parameters of gait fall within the international norms when compared with those of other countries.

The kinematic gait patterns were similar between the younger and older children which could be attributed to negligible differences in walking speed, exposure to similar levels and type of physical activities and the absence of gross developmental or structural abnormalities in our participants [43]. We also noted similar peak hip, knee and ankle angles between the older and younger age groups. These differences in peak angles were from 0.1° up to 5.8° between the two age groups (see Table 4 and 5). Our finding compares to published reports [11, 13, 36].

Cigali et al. [12] and Shih et al. [36] reported similar mean peak hip abd/add angles in 50 children aged 7–11 years (−3.30 ± 2.32 – 6.33 ± 5.54) and 10 children aged 9.7 ± 0.9 years (0.42 ± 3.52 – 8.93 ± 4.39) respectively compared to our reporting of median values. Cigali et al. [12] also reported mean peak values for knee E/F (−7.06 ± 6.76 – 55.56 ± 3.11), ankle PF/DF (−21.85 ± 6.03 – 12.08 ± 12.27) and foot progression (−18.50 ± 11.80 – 11.00 ± 11.80) which falls within the standard deviation band width of our study (see Fig. 2). Shih et al. [36] reported comparable mean peak knee add/abd and knee external/internal rotation values of−2.21 ± 4.42 – 3.42 ± 4.89 and−10.18 ± 6.54 – 3.08 ± 5.07 respectively. The studies by Nikolajsen et al [44] and Kung et al. [45] reported only on the joint kinematics during the stance phase of children aged 10 years old and reported similar hip, knee and ankle mean peak values as see in our study for the stance phase. For example, Kung et al [45] reported mean peak knee F, ankle DF and PF of 41.74 ± 3.72; 10.18 ± 3.15 and−11.78 ± 5.14 respectively. This could indicate that the kinematic gait patterns of the pelvis and lower limb of 6–10-year-old children are established, comparable to the joint kinematics of children from other countries and mimic more the adult-like patterns observed by Sutherland et al. [13]. They evaluated the gait of 309 children ranging from the onset of walking to seven years of age. They found that between the age of 3.5–4 years, children achieve maturation of gait. In a later study, they concluded that growth alone can explain most changes throughout the rest of the growing years [41]. As children mature and grow, their leg length and body height increase, which directly affect the time-distance parameters of gait [41].

When comparing joint kinematics within the two age subgroups, hip rotation was significantly different between the groups (p = 0.036). Older children (Group B) presented with more external rotation at the hip joint than the younger children (Group A). Femoral anteversion and hip internal rotation are highly correlated and both reduce significantly with advancing age. Thus, our study supports the fact that as a child develops, the degree of anteversion of the femoral head decreases and causes the older child to walk with more relative external rotation of the hip than a younger child [46, 47]. The degree of hip internal rotation may indicate surgical intervention in children with pathological gait. Hip rotation kinematic patterns might be age specific and should be considered accordingly when interpreting gait analysis data.

The study was limited by small numbers in certain sub-groups such as the number of 6-year-old boys. Kinetics were also not included in this study, but we recommend that future studies include kinetics as it could add valuable information to the understanding and interpretation of the gait patterns in typically developed 6–10-year-old children in South Africa.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the 3D kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in 28 typically developed 6–10-year-old South African children. It provides normative values for gait parameters that show that this South African gait analysis laboratory compares well with international gait laboratories and values can be used for comparison during gait analysis. The study’s findings concluded that normalized spatiotemporal parameters were similar between the two age groups and are consistent with the values of children from other countries. The joint kinematic values showed significant differences for hip rotation, indicating that older children had more external rotation than younger children.

Abbreviations

3D: 

Three-dimensional

Abd: 

Abduction

Add: 

Adduction

DF: 

Dorsiflexion

E: 

Extension

Ext rot: 

External rotation

F: 

Flexion

Int rot: 

Internal rotation

PF: 

Plantar flexion

PIG: 

Plug-in-Gait model

SD: 

Standard Deviation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the children and parents for their participation in the study.

Funding

Stellenbosch University provided funding for the study.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ Contributions

YS, QL and YB designed the study, YS performed the data collection, QL and YB completed the data processing and analysis phase, YS drafted the manuscript and QL and YB appraised the manuscript for its intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of Stellenbosch University was obtained (S13/10/220). Parents / guardians of participants signed an informed consent form prior to data collection. Participants seven years and older signed an informed assent form once the procedure was explained and all their questions answered.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa

References

  1. Bohannon RW. Number of pedometer-assessed steps taken per day by adults: a descriptive meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2007;87:1642–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Deconinck FJ, De Clercq D, Savelsbergh GJ, Van Coster R, Oostra A, Dewitte G, et al. Differences in gait between children with and without developmental coordination disorder. Mot Control. 2006;10:125–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Sorsdahl AB, Moe-Nilssen R, Strand LI. Observer reliability of the Gross Motor Performance Measure and the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, based on video recordings. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:146–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Thomann KH, Dul MW. Abnormal gait in neurologic disease. Optom Clin. 1996;5:181–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Andriacchi TP, Alexander EJ. Studies of human locomotion: past, present and future. J Biomech. 2000;33:1217–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rosenbaum PL, Russell DJ, Cadman DT, Gowland C, Jarvis S, Hardy S. Issues in measuring change in motor function in children with cerebral palsy: A special communication. Phys Ther. 1990;70:125–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dusing SC, Thorpe DE. A normative sample of temporal and spatial gait parameters in children using the GAITRite electronic walkway. Gait Posture. 2007;25:135–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chagas DDV, Leporace G, Praxedes J, Carvalho I, Pinto S, Batista LA. Analysis of kinematic parameters of gait in Brazilian children using a low-cost procedure. Hum Movement Sci. 2013;14:340–6.Google Scholar
  9. Prakash H, Ganesh T, Bhattacharji S. Effect of Single Event Multilevel Soft Tissue Surgery on Gait Parameters in Spastic Diplegia. IJBMR. 2007;18:3–6.Google Scholar
  10. Sutherland DH. The evolution of clinical gait analysis part l: kinesiological EMG. Gait Posture. 2001;14:61–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Thummerer Y, Von Kries R, Marton MA, Beyerlein A. Is age or speed the predominant factor in the development of trunk movement in normally developing children? Gait Posture. 2012;35:23–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciğali BS, Uluçam E, Bozer C. 3-D Motion Analysis of Hip, Knee and Ankle Joints of Children Aged Between 7-11 Years During Gait. Balk Med J. 2011;28:197–201.Google Scholar
  13. Sutherland DH, Olshen RA, Biden EN, Wyatt MP. The Development of Mature Walking. London: MacKeith Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  14. Holm I, Tveter AT, Fredriksen PM, Vollestad N. A normative sample of gait and hopping on one leg parameters in children 7-12 years of age. Gait Posture. 2009;29:317–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Der Linden ML, Kerr AM, Hazlewood ME, Hillman SJ, Robb JE. Kinematic and kinetic gait characteristics of normal children walking at a range of clinically relevant speeds. J Pediatr Orthoped. 2002;22:800–6.Google Scholar
  16. Schwartz MH, Rozumalski A, Trost JP. The effect of walking speed on the gait of typically developing children. J Biomech. 2008;41:1639–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Vaughan CL, Langerak NG, Malley MJ O. Neuromaturation of human locomotion revealed by non-dimensional scaling. Exp Brain Res. 2003;153:123–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Donald KA, Kakooza AM, Wammanda RD, Mallewa M, Samia P, Babakir H, Bearden D, Majnemer A, Fehlings D, Shevell M, Chugani H, Wilmshurst JM. Pediatric Cerebral Palsy in Africa: Where Are We? J Child Neurol. 2015;30:963–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pinzone O, Schwartz MH, Thomason P, Baker R. The comparison of normative reference data from different gait analysis services. Gait Posture. 2014;40:286–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrari A, Benedetti MG, Pavan E, Frigo C, Bettinelli D, Rabuffetti M, et al. Quantitative comparison of five current protocols in gait analysis. Gait Posture. 2008;28:207–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. American Medical Association, Sutter Health Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Teen Growth & Development, Years 11 to 14. 2001. http://www.pamf.org/parenting-teens/health/growth-development/pre-growth.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
  22. Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: International Survey. Brit Med J. 2000;320:1240–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Billingham SAM, Whithead AL, Julious SA. An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials being undertaken in the United Kingdom registered in the United Kingdom Clinical Research Network database. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:104.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wooten ME. Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking. J Orthop Res. 1990;8:383–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehara Y, Fujimoto H, Miyazaki S, Mochimaru M, Tanaka S, Yamamoto S. Comparison of the performance of 3D camera systems II. Gait Posture. 1997;5:251–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Richards JG. The measurement of human motion: A comparison of commercially available systems. Hum Movement Sci. 1999;18:589–602.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Baker R, Finney L, Orr J. A new approach to determine the hip rotation profile from clinical gait analysis data. Hum Movement Sci. 1999;18:655–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cockcroft J, Louw Q, Baker R. Proximal placement of lateral thigh skin markers reduces soft tissue artefact during normal gait using the Conventional Gait Model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2016;19:1497–504.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Passmore E, Sangeux M. Defining the medial-lateral axis of an anatomical femur coordinate system using freehand 3D ultrasound imaging. Gait Posture. 2016;45:211–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Woltring HJ. (1986) A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Adv Eng Softw. 1986;8:104–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connor CM, Thorpe SK, O’Malley MJ, Vaughan CL. Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture. 2007;25:469–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hof AL. Scaling gait data to body size. Gait Posture. 1996;4:222–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Stansfield BW, Hillman SJ, Hazlewood ME, Lawson AM, Mann AM, Loudon IR, et al. Normalisation of gait data in children. Gait Posture. 2003;17:81–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lythgo N, Wilson C, Galea M. Basic gait and symmetry measures for primary school-aged children and young adults whilst walking barefoot and with shoes. Gait Posture. 2009;30:502–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lythgo N, Wilson C, Galea M. Basic gait and symmetry measures for primary school-aged children and young adults. II: Walking at slow, free and fast speed. Gait Posture. 2011;33:29–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shih Y, Chen C, Chen W, Lin H. Lower extremity kinematics in children with and without flexible flatfoot: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:31–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno-Hernández A, Rodríguez-Reyes G, Quinones-Urióstegui I, Núnz-Carrera L, Pérez-SanPablo AI. Temporal and spatial gait parameters analysis in non-pathological Mexican children. Gait Posture. 2010;32:78–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson ML, Christou E, Rosengren KS. Children achieve adult-like sensory integration during stance at 12-years-old. Gait Posture. 2006;23:455–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Grieve DW, Gear RJ. The relationship between length of stride, step frequency, time of swing and speed of walking for children and adults. Ergonomics. 1966;5:379–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Todd FN, Lamoreux LW, Skinner SR, Johanson ME, Helen RS, Moran SA, et al. Variations in the gait of normal children: a graph applicable to the documentation of abnormalities. J Bone Joint Surg. 1989;71:196–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutherland DH. The development of mature gait. Gait Posture. 1997;6:163–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Bovi G, Rabuffetti M, Mazzoleni P, Ferrarin M. A multiple-task gait analysis approach: Kinematic, kinetic and EMG reference data for healthy young and adult subjects. Gait Posture. 2011;33:6–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Stansfield BW, Hillman SJ, Hazlewood ME, Lawson AA, Mann AM, Loudon IR, et al. Sagittal joint kinematics, moments, and powers are predominantly characterized by speed of progression, not age, in normal children. J Pediatr Orthoped. 2001;21:403–11.Google Scholar
  44. Nikolajsen H, Larsen PK, Simonsen EB, Alkjær T, Falkerslev S, Kristensen JH, et al. Gait pattern in 9-11-year-old children with generalized joint hypermobility compared with controls; a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:341–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Kung SM, Fink PW, Hume P, Shultz SP. Kinematic and kinetic differences between barefoot and shod walking in children. Footwear Science. 2015;7:95–105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Mudge AJ, Baua KV, Purcella LN, Wua JC, Axta MW, Selbera P, et al. Normative reference values for lower limb joint range, bone torsion, and alignment in children aged 4–16 years. J Pediatr Orthoped. 2014;23:15–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Gulan G, Matovinovi D, Nemec B, Rubini D. Ravli- Gulan J. Femoral Neck Anteversion Anteversion: values, development, measurement, common problems. Collegium Antropol. 2000;24:521–7.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement