PTSystematic ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Multibody dynamics-based musculoskeletal modeling for gait analysis: a systematic review.

Muhammad Abdullah, Abdul Aziz Hulleck, Rateb Katmah and 2 others

PMID 39369227

WHAT IT FOUND

Multibody musculoskeletal models can estimate internal joint forces and muscle activity from walking data, but clinical use is limited by bulky equipment, imperfect personalization, and limited validation.

Key findings

01The review included 116 articles on instrumented gait analysis using musculoskeletal modeling.

02Across the included studies, 82.76% used OpenSim, 86.21% used optical motion capture, and 62.93% used force plates.

03MSK modeling uses motion capture, ground reaction force data, and muscle activity data to calculate joint reaction forces, joint moments, and muscle forces.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a systematic review of modeling methods and applications, not a randomized trial or a study of patient outcomes. The review says clinical use is limited by bulky motion capture equipment, force plates that can alter natural gait, difficulty personalizing models, and lack of in vivo validation data. Many generic models are based on male anatomy, and the review notes that 57.75% of studies used male-based models to simulate female gait. Different software and models can produce different joint force estimates, so the review says model choice should match the specific question.

Declared interests

Khalifa University funded the work. The supplied text does not report author conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the model outputs as direct measurements or as proof that an intervention works. The review says clinical use is limited by equipment, personalization, and lack of in vivo validation.

Read it on PubMed →