Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate a method based on a single accelerometer for the assessment of gait symmetry and regularity in subjects wearing lower limb prostheses.Methods: Ten transfemoral amputees and ten healthy control subjects were studied. For the purpose of this study, subjects wore a triaxial accelerometer on their thorax, and foot insoles. Subjects were asked to walk straight ahead for 70 m at their natural speed, and at a lower and faster speed. Indices of step and stride regularity (Ad1 and Ad2, respectively) were obtained by the autocorrelation coefficients computed from the three acceleration components. Step and stride durations were calculated from the plantar pressure data and were used to compute two reference indices (SI1 and SI2) for step and stride regularity.Results: Regression analysis showed that both Ad1 well correlates with SI1 (R²up to 0.74), and Ad2 well correlates with SI2 (R²up to 0.52). A ROC analysis showed that Ad1 and Ad2 has generally a good sensitivity and specificity in classifying amputee's walking trial, as having a normal or a pathologic step or stride regularity as defined by means of the reference indices SI1 and SI2. In particular, the antero-posterior component of Ad1 and the vertical component of Ad2 had a sensitivity of 90.6% and 87.2%, and a specificity of 92.3% and 81.8%, respectively.Conclusions: The use of a simple accelerometer, whose components can be analyzed by the autocorrelation function method, is adequate for the assessment of gait symmetry and regularity in transfemoral amputees.

Gait analysis is recognized as a useful assessment tool in the field of human movement research. However, doubts remain on its real effectiveness as a clinical tool, i.e. on its capability to change the diagnostic-therapeutic practice. In particular, the conditions in which evidence of a favorable cost-benefit ratio is found and the methodology for properly conducting and interpreting the exam are not identified clearly. To provide guidelines for the use of Gait Analysis in the context of rehabilitation medicine, SIAMOC (the Italian Society of Clinical Movement Analysis) promoted a National Consensus Conference which was held in Bologna on September 14th, 2013. The resulting recommendations were the result of a three-stage process entailing i) the preparation of working documents on specific open issues, ii) the holding of the consensus meeting, and iii) the drafting of consensus statements by an external Jury. The statements were formulated based on scientific evidence or experts' opinion, when the quality/quantity of the relevant literature was deemed insufficient. The aim of this work is to disseminate the consensus statements. These are divided into 13 questions grouped in three areas of interest: 1) General requirements and management, 2) Methodological and instrumental issues, and 3) Scientific evidence and clinical appropriateness. SIAMOC hopes that this document will contribute to improve clinical practice and help promoting further research in the field.

Quantitative gait analysis can provide a description of joint kinematics and dynamics, and it is recognized as a clinically useful tool for functional assessment, diagnosis and intervention planning. Clinically interpretable parameters are estimated from quantitative measures (i.e. ground reaction forces, skin marker trajectories, etc.) through biomechanical modelling. In particular, the estimation of joint moments during motion is grounded on several modelling assumptions: (1) body segmental and joint kinematics is derived from the trajectories of markers and by modelling the human body as a kinematic chain; (2) joint resultant (net) loads are, usually, derived from force plate measurements through a model of segmental dynamics. Therefore, both measurement errors and modelling assumptions can affect the results, to an extent that also depends on the characteristics of the motor task analysed (i.e. gait speed). Errors affecting the trajectories of joint centres, the orientation of joint functional axes, the joint angular velocities, the accuracy of inertial parameters and force measurements (concurring to the definition of the dynamic model), can weigh differently in the estimation of clinically interpretable joint moments. Numerous studies addressed all these methodological aspects separately, but a critical analysis of how these aspects may affect the clinical interpretation of joint dynamics is still missing. This article aims at filling this gap through a systematic review of the literature, conducted on Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. The final objective is hence to provide clear take-home messages to guide laboratories in the estimation of joint moments for the clinical practice.