Agreement Between Hip Joint Center Estimation Methods and Comparisons of Dependent Hip, Thigh, and Knee Angles

Hip joint center (HJC) location estimation influences dependent angles and clinical interpretations. We examined the agreement between 6 HJC estimation methods; compared hip, thigh, and knee angles; and explored HJC location and thigh angle associations. Pelvis markers were used to estimate HJC location via 6 popular methods using Harrington's method as the reference standard. HJC limits of agreement analysis and inferential angle comparisons during standing revealed that Bell's (HJC bias range = 0-11 mm, hip angle difference range = -0.2° to 0.1°) and Vaughan's (HJC bias range = -5 to 41 mm, hip angle difference range = -0.5° to -5.3°) methods were most and least like Harrington's but varied by dimension. Stepwise regression showed that anterior-posterior, medial-lateral, and anterior-posterior HJC coordinate differences best explained sagittal (R2 range = .95-.99, P < .001), frontal (R2 range = .83-.99, P < .001), and transverse (R2 range = .54-.72, P < .001) thigh angle differences, respectively. Different HJC methods caused several large sagittal but more minor frontal and transverse plane differences. We urge caution when using different HJC methods.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Biomechanics
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2024-0230
Primary Topic
Hip disorders and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Agreement Between Hip Joint Center Estimation Methods and Comparisons of Dependent Hip, Thigh, and Knee Angles

Ho-Cheng Lu, Hyung Suk Yang, Karthick Natesan, Lee T. Atkins et al.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics
Hip disorders and treatments
article

Agreement Between Hip Joint Center Estimation Methods and Comparisons of Dependent Hip, Thigh, and Knee Angles

Ho-Cheng Lu, Hyung Suk Yang, Karthick Natesan, Lee T. Atkins, C. Roger James, Aaron Likness
article en

Abstract

Hip joint center (HJC) location estimation influences dependent angles and clinical interpretations. We examined the agreement between 6 HJC estimation methods; compared hip, thigh, and knee angles; and explored HJC location and thigh angle associations. Pelvis markers were used to estimate HJC location via 6 popular methods using Harrington's method as the reference standard. HJC limits of agreement analysis and inferential angle comparisons during standing revealed that Bell's (HJC bias range = 0-11 mm, hip angle difference range = -0.2° to 0.1°) and Vaughan's (HJC bias range = -5 to 41 mm, hip angle difference range = -0.5° to -5.3°) methods were most and least like Harrington's but varied by dimension. Stepwise regression showed that anterior-posterior, medial-lateral, and anterior-posterior HJC coordinate differences best explained sagittal (R2 range = .95-.99, P < .001), frontal (R2 range = .83-.99, P < .001), and transverse (R2 range = .54-.72, P < .001) thigh angle differences, respectively. Different HJC methods caused several large sagittal but more minor frontal and transverse plane differences. We urge caution when using different HJC methods.

Journal of Applied BiomechanicsVol. 41(4)
Texas Tech University (US), University of South Dakota (US), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Hip disorders and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.