Canonical correlation between body-posture deviations and gait disorders in children with cerebral palsy

Andrzej Szopa; Małgorzata Domagalska-Szopa; Andrzej Siwiec; Ilona Kwiecień-Czerwieniec

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234654

Abstract

Children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) show the postural constraints while standing, and gait disorders, resulting from both primary and secondary impairments of brain injury. In our previous studies, several characteristic postural and gait patterns in children with unilateral as well as with bilateral CP were defined, and the relationship between these patterns was demonstrated. The purpose of present study was to identify which features of body posture deviation during standing were strongly related to gait deviations in independently ambulatory children with CP. For this aim we explored the cross—relationship between features of body posture while standing examined by surface topography and the selected gait parameters from three-dimensional instrumented gait analysis in one hundred twenty children with cerebral palsy, aged between 7 and 13 years, who were able to walk independently. First, our study documented that that sagittal misalignment of the spine curvature was significantly related to kinematic deviations such as deviations of pelvic tilt, inadequate swing phase and knee flexion, and peak dorsiflexion in stance. Second, the study shows that the static asymmetry of pelvis and trunk was significantly associated with kinematic deviations during gait cycle such as pelvic rotation, hip abduction in swing, ROM of knee flexion, peak dorsiflexion in stance. Based on obtained results and referring to our previous findings it can be assumed that the first model of the relationship between postural deviation and gait disturbances, called ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in sagittal plane’, is related to children with bilateral CP, whereas the second model ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in coronal plane’ to children with unilateral CP. The clinical applications of this study relate to the early recognition of particular features of postural deviation using surface topography, instead of more difficult and demanding expensive tools 3-D gait analysis.

Citation: Szopa A, Domagalska-Szopa M, Siwiec A, Kwiecień-Czerwieniec I (2020) Canonical correlation between body-posture deviations and gait disorders in children with cerebral palsy. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0234654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654

Editor: Manoj Srinivasan, The Ohio State University, UNITED STATES

Received: September 22, 2019; Accepted: May 30, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Szopa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Cerebral palsy (CP) is an impairment of postural control and manifestation of motor dysfunction of non-progressive brain damage; CP occurs early in life [1]. Although the cerebral insult is fixed and non-progressive, the primary impairments caused by the upper motor neuron syndrome can lead to the development of secondary impairments. These include inadequate growth of muscles, which can cause contractures (shortening) of muscles and tendons, bone deformities, misalignment of joints, and excessive fatigue upon movement and walking [1]. Such primary and secondary impairments are often complex, resulting in a set of persistent disorders of posture and gait [1–3].

The localisation of CP can be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP) is a subtype of CP in which the limbs on one side of the body are involved. Bilateral cerebral palsy (BCP) is a subtype in which the limbs on both sides are involved [4]. Severity of dysfunction in children with CP can best be classified according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) [5]: the higher the level in the GMFCS, the more severe is the manifestation of CP. Only children at GMFCS level I–III can walk without assistance.

Children with CP show problems with positioning of the body in space, misalignments in posture while standing, and gait disorders, which result from primary and secondary impairments in CP [6–12]. The postural and gait patterns of children with CP can differ considerably. However, in our previous studies, several characteristic postural and gait patterns in children with UCP as well as those with BCP were defined, and the relationship between these patterns was demonstrated [13–16]. Those results suggested that abnormal postural patterns can be a major component of gait disorders in CP. Although scholars have highlighted the dependence of postural control on functionality [7,8], the relationship between the standing posture and walking function has rarely been investigated in children with CP [11].

Accordingly, we investigated the relationship between body-posture deviations and gait disorders in children with CP by an innovative statistical method—canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and the structural equation model. The purpose of present study was to identify the most important features of body posture deviation while standing and specific gait disorders, as well as to recognize the relationship between them in independently ambulatory children with CP.

For this aim we explored the canonical correlation between features of body posture while standing measured by surface topography and the selected gait parameters that comprise the Gillette Gait Index (GGI) in a large cohort of children with CP. The present study may aid better understanding of aspects concerning the relationship between body-posture deviations and gait disorders in this population.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical approval of the study protocol

The study protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of our institution (NN-013-350/I/03/09). All work was carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). Parents/guardians provided written informed consent before enrolment of their children in this study.

2.2. Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were patients: (i) with a diagnosis of UCP or BCP; (ii) aged ≥7 years (to minimise the prevalence of unstable gait patterns); (iii) who could walk without assistance.

2.3. Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were patients: (i) administered pharmacological agents at the time of study; (ii) who underwent spasticity management <6 months before evaluation; (iii) who had hip dislocation or fracture of the lower limbs previously; (v) with a history of uncontrolled seizures or vestibular dysfunction; (v) who had lower-limb surgery previously; (vi) with comorbidity that could influence the gait pattern (e.g., cardiopulmonary disorders, diabetes mellitus, asthma).

2.4. Participants

Children with a diagnosis of spastic CP who were the outpatients of local paediatric rehabilitation centres and who met the inclusion criteria stated above were evaluated sequentially.

Of the 127 children who met the inclusion criteria, 120 children with CP (UCP, 62; BCP, 58) aged between 7 years and 13 years (age (mean ± SD) 11.0 ± 2.1 years) who could walk independently (52 females and 68 males) were included in this study. Five participants were excluded because they could not follow verbal directions during examination, and two participants were excluded because they refused to undress for examination. Participants were classified by GMFCS into two levels: I (walks without limitations; n = 68) and II (walks with limitations; n = 52) and their GMFM-88 score on average was 67.6% (49.2–97.9) [17].

2.5. Testing procedures

The present study is a follow-up and extension of a previous four-part series on the functional assessment of children with CP [13–16]. Our study comprised two interrelated parts: (i) surface topography of body posture; (ii) three-dimensional instrumented gait analyses (3DIGA).

2.5.1 Surface topography of body posture.

The group of children with CP underwent examination of surface topography based on the Moiré phenomenon (i.e. projection Moiré topography (MT). MT was used to obtain a graphical representation of the body posture for a quantitative assessment of postural patterns [18,19]. MT is an optical method used to assess deviations of the back-surface contours associated with deformities in body posture. Children were tested using MT system (CQ Elektronik System, Czernica, Poland).

A few studies assessed the accuracy of MT measurement in respect to other methods of body posture examination. The high repeatability and reproducibility of MT examination has been demonstrated by Chowańska et al. [18]. In addition, MT and radiography are highly correlated [20–22]. Moreover, use of MT for postural assessment can reduce radiation exposure in growing children.

For examination of posture, we used the same experimental method described in our previous studies for investigating body alignment in a standing position in children with UCP and those with BCP [13,15]. During MT examination, participants stood relaxed with arms alongside their trunk, barefoot, in an uncorrected and quiet stance. For MT, it was necessary to uncover the entire surface of the back and identify some anatomical landmarks: the spinous process of C₇, spinous process of S1, acromial angle of shoulders, superior angle of the scapula, inferior angle of the scapula, and posterior superior iliac spine. Several indices were measured in our study. In the sagittal plane, the angle of trunk inclination in the sagittal plane, angle of pelvic tilt, angle of kyphosis, angle of lordosis, and the difference between the angle of kyphosis and angle of lordosis were measured. In the coronal plane, the trunk inclination index in the coronal plane, angle of vertebral lateral curvature, angle of shoulder line inclination, and angle of pelvis obliquity was measured. In the transverse plane, the angle of trunk rotation, angle of shoulder rotation, and angle of pelvic rotation were measured [13,15].

To determine inter-rater reliability (AS vs MDS), both examiners performed the analysis of the same, randomly selected set of 20 topograms (initial analysis). To determine the stability of intra-rater measure (AS vs AS and MDS vs MDS), both examiners after 48 hours performed an analysis of the same set of 20 topograms (repeated analysis). In both initial and repeated analysis, the two examiners performed the evaluations independently, blind to the allocation of topograms.

2.5.2 3DIGA.

3D kinematic data were collected using the Compact Measuring System for 3D Real-Time Motion Analysis based on 15 active (five triplicate) ultrasound markers using WinGait^™ (Zebris Medizintechnik, Weitnau, Germany). Gait data were recorded as the participants walked barefoot on a treadmill (Alpha XL; Kettler, Ense, Germany). Before conducting gait analyses, several anatomical landmarks were identified with an instrumented pointer: hip joint centre; knee centre (medial and lateral femoral epicondyle); ankle rotation centre (internal, and external); forefoot landmark (between the second and third metatarsals); rear foot (heel). Before data collection, all participants could walk on the treadmill to test it out. Children walked without shoes and without assistive devices. Ultrasonic markers were attached to the skin with double-adhesive tapes and placed bilaterally. By trial-and-error, the speed of the treadmill was adjusted based on the ability of each child to ensure the most natural gait for every individual and was 2.45±0.36 km/h on average (walking speed = 0.68±0.17 m/sec; cadence = 0.85±0.18 per sec). Three trials were undertaken with 2–5 strides in each trial.

The GGI comprises 16 distinct gait parameters. The GGI was calculated (separately for each lower limb) according the procedure described by Schutte et al. and Romei and colleagues [23,24]. The 16 parameters are: (1) stance phase (expressed as the percentage of the gait cycle); (2) walking speed (normalised to leg length); (3) cadence; (4) mean pelvic tilt; (5) range of motion (ROM) of pelvic tilt; (6) mean pelvic rotation; (7) minimum hip flexion; (8) ROM of hip flexion/extension; (9) peak hip abduction in swing; (10) mean hip rotation in stance; (11) knee flexion at initial contact; (12) time to peak knee flexion in swing (expressed as the percentage of the gait cycle); (13) ROM of knee flexion; (14) peak dorsiflexion in stance; (15) peak dorsiflexion in swing; (16) mean foot progression.

2.6. Statistical analyses

The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval to evaluate the intra-observer and interobserver agreement across MT parameters were used. Absolute reliability was determined by calculating both the standard deviation of measurement errors (SEM) and the (minimal detectable change) MDC.

Originally, 11 MT indices and GGI and 16 gait parameters were defined for each participant. The mean values of MT indices from three measurements and mean values for GGI and 16 distinct gait parameters (averaged for both lower limbs) from three gait trials were used for statistical analyses. The high dimensionality of the data for postural analysis and gait analysis meant that factorial analysis had to be employed to reduce the number of variables [25]. It was assumed that only variables for which the absolute values of the factor loadings were >0.7 were associated with large values of factor loadings and carried the appropriate amount of information [25]. Therefore, these variables were considered in further analysis for canonical correlation. The relationship between the variable set MT indices (predictor set) and variable set gait kinematics (criterion set) was analysed using CCA [26]. There are several nonparametric measures of relationships based on the similarity of ranks in two variables (e.g., multiple regression, principal component analysis, multiple correspondence analysis). Nevertheless, CCA as a new technique in the clinical domain is the most appropriate procedure to investigate the relationship between two sets of variables.

3. Results

The intra-observer error across MT parameters (TT, ALC, PO, SHI, K, LL) was 0.82–0.90 (mean 0.86), whereas the inter-observer error was 0.78–0.86 (mean 0.82). Both values reflected excellent reliability [27]. SEM and MDC values across MT parameters (TT, ALC, PO, K, LL) comparable between observers (AS vs MD) were from 0.49° to 1.65° and 0.23° to 4.57°, respectively. SEM and MDC values comparable between repeated measurements were varying from 0.19° to 2.82° and 0.50° to 7.82°, respectively for first assessor (AS1 vs AS2) and between 0.19 to 2.90 and 0.53 to 8.03 respectively for second assessor (MD1 vs MD2).

CCA was conducted using nine postural variables (Table 1) as predictors of 12 gait variables (Table 2) to evaluate the multivariate shared relationship between the two variable sets (i.e., body-posture deviations and gait disorders in children with CP).

Download:

Table 1. Description of variable set Moiré topography (MT) indices (predictor set).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.t001

Download:

Table 2. Description of variable set gait kinematics (criterion set).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.t002

Results for the structural equation model showed significant F (117, 618.88) = 2.21 (p < 0.001, λ = 0.07) and yielded nine functions, wherein the R²_c value was 0.58, 0.48, 0.30, 0.25, 0.16, 0.12, 0.07, 0.03, and 0.01 for each successive function. Results of dimension-reduction analysis showed that functions 1–9 were significant (results for the full model), and functions 2–9 showed significant F (96, 562.65) = 1.70, p < 0.001. Tests for other functions were not significant at α = 0.05, which indicated that they did not show a significant amount of shared variance between the variable sets. Hence, in further analysis, only Functions 1 and 2 were included. Table 3 presents the standardised canonical function coefficients and structure coefficients for Functions 1 and 2. The squared structure coefficients are also given in addition to the communalities across the Function 1 and 2 for each variable.

Download:

Table 3. Canonical solution for body posture deviation (MT indices) predicting gait disorders (gait kinematics) for functions 1 and 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.t003

Looking at the coefficients for Function 1 reveals that relevant criterion variables were mean of pelvic tilt, mean pelvic rotation, minimum hip flexion, knee flexion at initial contact, and peak dorsiflexion in stance, which made secondary contributions to the criterion variable. This conclusion was supported by the squared structure coefficients. The first three variables had the same sign and the last two were inversely related to the criterion set, which also indicated that they were negatively associated with the predictor set (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Illustration of the first function in a canonical correlation analysis with a predictor variable set with two variables (body posture features) and criterion variable set with five variables (gait kinematics).

Coef = standardized canonical function, r_s = structure coefficient, r_s² = squared structure coefficient. The canonical correlation (R_c) is a simple Pearson correlation (r) between the synthetic variables, which were linearly combined from the observed variables. KL index, difference between angle of kyphosis and angle of lordosis; LL, angle of lordosis (LL); MeanPT, mean of pelvic tilt; MeanPR, mean pelvic rotation; HMinF, minimum hip flexion; KICF, knee flexion at initial contact; PDFst, peak dorsiflexion in stance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.g001

The other side of the equation on Function 1 involves the predictor set (based on the criterion r_s > 0.40). Table 1 indicates that the difference between angle of kyphosis and angle of lordosis (KL index) and the angle of lordosis variables were the primary contributors to the predictor synthetic variable, with a secondary contribution by gait kinematics. This conclusion was supported by the squared structure coefficients. The structure coefficients of both variables had the same sign, indicating that they were positively associated with the MT indices set (Fig 1).

With regard to the predictor variable set in Function 1, KL index and angle of lordosis variables were positively associated with pelvic and hip kinematics (mean of pelvic tilt, mean pelvic rotation, and minimum hip flexion), and negatively with knee flexion at initial contact and peak dorsiflexion in stance. Taking in to account, that all significant factors of predictors set mainly (except one) referred to the sagittal plane, we labelled Function 1 as ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the sagittal plane’.

The canonical correlation (R_c) between both synthetic variables presented a strong uphill (positive) linear relationship.

For Function 2, the coefficients in Table 3 suggest that the only criterion variables of relevance were mean pelvic rotation, peak hip abduction in swing, peak dorsiflexion in stance, mean foot progression, knee flexion at initial contact, and ROM of knee flexion, albeit less for the latter. Knee flexion at initial contact and ROM of knee flexion were characterised by a positive sign and were inversely associated with the other variables (Fig 2). Regarding the predictor variable set in Function 2, the variables: trunk inclination index in the coronal plane, pelvic obliquity, angle of shoulder rotation, and angle of shoulder line inclination in the coronal plane were the primary contributors to the predictor synthetic variable, with secondary contribution by gait kinematics. In the predictor set, only angle of shoulder rotation showed a positive sign and was inversely associated with other predictors (Table 3). The postural features such as trunk inclination index in the coronal plane, pelvic obliquity, and angle of shoulder inclination and angle of shoulder rotation were positively associated with pelvic and hip kinematics (mean of pelvic tilt, mean pelvic rotation, and minimum hip flexion), but negatively associated with knee flexion at initial contact and peak dorsiflexion in stance (Fig 2). Because significant factors of predictors set mainly (except one) referred to the coronal plane, therefore, this function seem to capture theoretically consistent relationships that one may collectively call ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the coronal plane’.

Download:

Fig 2. Illustration of the second function in CCA with a predictor variable set with four variables (body posture features) and criterion variable set with six variables (gait kinematics).

Coef = standardized canonical function, r_s = structure coefficient, r_s² = squared structure coefficient. The canonical correlation (R_c) is a simple Pearson correlation (r) between the synthetic variables, which were linearly combined from the observed variables. TI, trunk inclination index in the coronal plane; SHR, angle of shoulder rotation; SHI, angle of shoulder line inclination in the coronal plane; PO, pelvic obliquity; MeanPR, mean pelvic rotation; HPAbsw, peak hip abduction in swing; KICF, knee flexion at initial contact; KROMF, ROM of knee flexion; PDFst, peak dorsiflexion in stance; FMeanP, mean foot progression.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.g002

4. Discussion

Although some of our previous studies have shown that body-posture deviations and gait disorders in children with CP are related, the relationship between them was exploring separately in clinical subgroups (UCP/BCP) [13–16]. Taken together, these findings revealed that abnormal postural patterns can be a major component of gait disorders in children with UCP [13,14] and BCP [15,16].

Although this was not the main focus of this research, factorial analysis used to reduce the number of variables of gait parameters identified previously unreported kinematic deviations in these children, including pelvic misalignment in all (sagittal, frontal, and horizontal) planes and an inadequate ROM of hip abduction/adduction in swing phase. Scholars have highlighted that gait problems in children with UCP and BCP mainly involve deviations in lower-limb gait kinematics in the sagittal plane, without accounting for pelvic kinematics and truncal posture [28–31].

Although surface topography and quantitative 3DIGA are excellent indicators of postural dysfunction and gait disorders in patients with CP, respectively, both methods generate a considerable amount of data that require complex interpretation. To overcome these problems, we used CCA to jointly analyse multiple datasets to establish a multivariate relationship between MT indices (predictor set) and gait kinematics (criterion set). Exploration of the relationship between body-posture deviation and gait disturbances in children with CP via CCA showed that the most important postural feature related to gait disturbances in this population was sagittal misalignment of the spine. That is, inadequate curvature (kyphosis or lordosis) construction of the spine expressed by the magnitude of angle of lordosis and KL index. When the angle of kyphosis is larger than lordosis, the KL index ranges from −180° to 0° and, conversely, ranges from 180° to 0° in the opposite case.

Our findings documented that sagittal misalignment of the spine curvature was related significantly to kinematic deviations during the gait cycle, such as deviations of pelvic, hip, knee, and ankle kinematics (express by mean pelvic tilt, inadequate hip abduction in swing phase, knee flexion at initial contact, and peak dorsiflexion in stance, respectively), which mainly suggests association with gait disturbances in the sagittal plane. Hyperlordosis tended to involve not only abnormalities of pelvic and hip movements during gait (theoretically expected relationships) but also abnormalities of the knee (knee flexion at initial contact) and ankle (peak dorsiflexion in stance) movements. Moreover, the obtained results showed not only well-documented key interactions between adjacent segments of lower limbs during gait, but also the relevant opposite interrelationship between pelvic and hip movements with distant segment kinematics (e.g., knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion in stance). Given that the features of the sagittal plane, both in the predictor and criterion variables, were the dominant contributors, one can label this relationship collectively as ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the sagittal plane’.

Function 2 also yielded theoretically expected relationships between deviations in body posture and gait disorders in children with CP, as expressed by the strong positive linear relationship between both synthetic variables. We also drew knowledge from the predictor variables used in the second model. These obtained results showed that the static misalignment of particular segments of body posture in the coronal plane expressed by the trunk inclination index, angle of shoulder line inclination, and pelvic obliquity were the primary contributors to the predictor synthetic variables, with a secondary contribution by development of gait disturbances in children with CP. Our findings documented that coronal misalignment of the pelvis, trunk and shoulder girdle was significantly and positively associated with kinematic deviations during the gait cycle, such as mean pelvic rotation, peak hip abduction in swing, knee flexion at initial contact, ROM of knee flexion, peak dorsiflexion in stance, and mean foot progression. Because the postural predictors in the coronal plane were the dominant contributors, we can label this relationship collectively as ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the coronal plane’.

The results of the present study are supportive of data from our previous study exploring an association between posture and gait separately in clinical subgroups (UCP/BCP) [13–16]. Those studies documented that the discrepancy in gait among children with UCP and children with BCP was not simply a lower-limb kinematic deviation in the sagittal plane [28–31]. The gait patterns were also dependent upon kinematic deviations resulting directly from two postural-pattern features. The first was static misalignments of the trunk and pelvis in the sagittal plane (e.g. those resulting from excessive anterior pelvic tilt and excessive lumbar curve in the spine) of children with BCP [15]. The second was static misalignments of the trunk, shoulder girdle, and pelvis in the coronal plane (asymmetry) (e.g., spine inclination towards the unaffected/affected side, pelvis obliquity down/up on the affected side, and shoulder inclination towards the unaffected/affected side) in children with UCP.

Although the obtained results revealed the significant multivariate shared relationship between specific postural deviations and specified gait disturbances in children with CP, the causal relationships between them is not known. The clinical applications of this study relate to the early recognition of particular features of postural deviation using surface topography, instead of more difficult and demanding expensive tools 3-D gait analysis.

Attention should be paid to promote and facilitate the development of: (i) appropriate curvature (kyphosis or lordosis) construction in the spine and neutral pelvis position in the sagittal plane, and the symmetry of pelvic, trunk, and shoulder girdle orientation in the coronal plane; (ii) motor control of pelvic rotation, hip abduction, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion.

Our study had three main limitations. First, the ability to walk without assistive devices was a criterion for study inclusion. Second, previous lower-limb surgery was an exclusion criterion, which is why only some children with CP were included. Third, our study was based on an incomplete set of the 16 gait parameters that comprise the GGI [32]. The complete analysis should involve all the spatiotemporal variables and kinematic parameters from 3DIGA, but so much data is generated that such complex interpretation is not possible in this type of study. To overcome these problems, a set of 16 gait parameters closely correlated with particular gait problems in children with CP were selected by a group of experienced clinicians and which are included in the present study [24].

5. Conclusions

Based on present results and referring to our previous finding documents that deviation from the proper posture in the children with BCP mostly included postural features characteristic of the sagittal plane [15] whereas, the asymmetric alignment of segments of body posture in a coronal plane is mostly characteristic of children with a UCP [13], it can be the assumed that:

the first model of relationship between postural deviation and gait disturbances, termed ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the sagittal plane’, was related to children with BCP,
the second model, ‘postural and gait complex of disorders in the coronal plane’, illustrated these relationships in children with UCP.

Although, the results of the current study seem promising, the relationships between gait & posture should be further explored in different subgroups of children with CP.

Supporting information

S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.s001

(XLSX)

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234654.s002

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Jakub Serek for her advice for the statistical analysis.

References

1. Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 2007; 109: 8–14. pmid:17370477
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Gage JR. The treatment of gait problems in cerebral palsy. London, UK: MacKeith Press, 2004.
3. Moreno De Luca A, Ledbetter DH, Martin CL. Genetic insights into the causes and classification of the cerebral palsies. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11: 283–92. pmid:22261432
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe. Surveillance of cerebral palsy in Europe: a collaboration of cerebral palsy surveys and registers. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE). Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42(12): 816–24. pmid:11132255
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Palisano RJ, Rosenbaum PL, Walter SD, Russell DJ, Wood EP, Galuppi BE. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with Cerebral Palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214–23. pmid:9183258
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Rose J, Wolff DR, Jones VK, Bloch DA, Oehlert JW, Gamble JG. Postural balance in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002; 44: 58–63. pmid:11811652
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Liao H, Hwang A. Relations of balance function and gross motor ability for children with cerebral palsy. Percept Mot Skills 2003; 96: 1173–84. pmid:12929770
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Pavăo SL, Nunes GS, Santos AN, Rocha NA. Relationship between static postural control and the level of functional abilities in children with cerebral palsy. Braz J Phys Ther 2014; 18: 300–7. pmid:25054383
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Iosa M, Marro T, Paolucci S, Morelli D. Stability and harmony of gait in children with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil 2012; 33: 129–35. pmid:22093657
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Wallard L, Dietrich G, Kerlirzin Y, Bredin J. Balance control in gait children with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture 2014; 40: 43–7. pmid:24656683
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Woollacott M, Shumway–Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002; 16: 1–14. pmid:12127181
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Woollacott MH, Shumway–Cook A. Postural dysfunction during standing and walking in children with cerebral palsy: what are the underlying problems and what new therapies might improve balance? Neural Plast 2005; 12: 211–9. pmid:16097489
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Postural pattern recognition in children with unilateral cerebral palsy. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2014; 10: 113–20. pmid:24600228
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Domagalska-Szopa M, Szopa A. Gait pattern differences between children with mild scoliosis and children with unilateral cerebral palsy. PLoS One 2014; 9, e103095. pmid:25089908
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Postural orientation and standing postural alignment in ambulant children with bilateral cerebral palsy. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2017; 49: 22–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Gait pattern differences among children with bilateral cerebral palsy. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 1–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Avery LM. et al.: Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) User’s Mannual. Mac Keith Press, Cambridge, 2002.
18. Chowańska J, Kotwicki T, Rosadziński K, Śliwiński Z. School screening for scoliosis: can surface topography replace examination with scoliometer? Scoliosis 2012; 7: 9. pmid:22472020
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Patias P, Grivas TB, Kaspiris A, Aggouris C, Drakoutos E. A review of the trunk surface metrics used as scoliosis and other deformities evaluation indices. Scoliosis 2010; 5: 12. pmid:20584340
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Benoni G, Willner S. Asymmetry of moire pattern at different levels of the spine, in: Drerup B, Frobin W, Hierholzer E (Eds.). Moire Fringe Topography and Spinal Deformity, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1983, 93–8.
21. Ruggerone M, Austin J. Moiré Topography in Scoliosis Correlations with Vertebral Lateral Curvature as Determined by Radiography. Phys Ther 1986; 66: 1072–7. pmid:3725892
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Denton T, Randall F, Deinlein D. The Use of Instant Moiré Photographs to Reduce Exposure from Scoliosis Radiographs. Spine 1992; 17: 509–12. pmid:1621149
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Schutte LM, Narayanan U, Stout JL, Selber P, Gage JR, Schwartz MH. An index for quantifying deviations from normal gait. Gait Posture 2000; 11(1): 25–31. pmid:10664482
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Romei M, Galli M, Motta F, Schwartz M, Crivellini M. Use of the normalcy index for the evaluation of gait pathology. Gait Posture 2004; 19(1): 85–90. pmid:14741307
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 5th ed., Taylor & Francis Group, LLC., New York, 2009.
26. Sherry A, Henson R. Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. J Pers Assess 2004; 84(1): 37–48.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155–63. pmid:27330520
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Winters TF Jr, Gage JR, Hicks R. Gait patterns in spastic hemiplegia in children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69: 437–41. pmid:3818706
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Rodda J, Graham HK. Classification of gait patterns in spastic hemiplegia and spastic diplegia: a basis for a management algorithm. Eur J Neurol 2001; 8: 98–108. pmid:11851738
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Lin CJ, Guo LY, Su FC, Chou YL, Cherng RJ. Common abnormal kinetic patterns of the knee in gait in spastic diplegia of cerebral palsy. Gait Posture 2000; 11: 224–32. pmid:10802435
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Rodda JM, Graham HK, Carson L, Galea MP, Wolfe R. Sagittal gait patterns in spastic diplegia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 251–8. pmid:15046442
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Schwartz MH, Rozumalski A. The Gait Deviation Index: a new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait Posture. 2008; 28: 351–7. pmid:18565753
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 2007; 109: 8–14. pmid:17370477
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Gage JR. The treatment of gait problems in cerebral palsy. London, UK: MacKeith Press, 2004.

[ref3] 3. Moreno De Luca A, Ledbetter DH, Martin CL. Genetic insights into the causes and classification of the cerebral palsies. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11: 283–92. pmid:22261432
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] PubMed/NCBI

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe. Surveillance of cerebral palsy in Europe: a collaboration of cerebral palsy surveys and registers. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE). Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42(12): 816–24. pmid:11132255
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Palisano RJ, Rosenbaum PL, Walter SD, Russell DJ, Wood EP, Galuppi BE. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with Cerebral Palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214–23. pmid:9183258
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Rose J, Wolff DR, Jones VK, Bloch DA, Oehlert JW, Gamble JG. Postural balance in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002; 44: 58–63. pmid:11811652
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Liao H, Hwang A. Relations of balance function and gross motor ability for children with cerebral palsy. Percept Mot Skills 2003; 96: 1173–84. pmid:12929770
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Pavăo SL, Nunes GS, Santos AN, Rocha NA. Relationship between static postural control and the level of functional abilities in children with cerebral palsy. Braz J Phys Ther 2014; 18: 300–7. pmid:25054383
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Iosa M, Marro T, Paolucci S, Morelli D. Stability and harmony of gait in children with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil 2012; 33: 129–35. pmid:22093657
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Wallard L, Dietrich G, Kerlirzin Y, Bredin J. Balance control in gait children with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture 2014; 40: 43–7. pmid:24656683
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Woollacott M, Shumway–Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002; 16: 1–14. pmid:12127181
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Woollacott MH, Shumway–Cook A. Postural dysfunction during standing and walking in children with cerebral palsy: what are the underlying problems and what new therapies might improve balance? Neural Plast 2005; 12: 211–9. pmid:16097489
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Postural pattern recognition in children with unilateral cerebral palsy. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2014; 10: 113–20. pmid:24600228
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Domagalska-Szopa M, Szopa A. Gait pattern differences between children with mild scoliosis and children with unilateral cerebral palsy. PLoS One 2014; 9, e103095. pmid:25089908
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Postural orientation and standing postural alignment in ambulant children with bilateral cerebral palsy. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2017; 49: 22–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Domagalska–Szopa M, Szopa A. Gait pattern differences among children with bilateral cerebral palsy. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 1–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Avery LM. et al.: Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) User’s Mannual. Mac Keith Press, Cambridge, 2002.

[ref18] 18. Chowańska J, Kotwicki T, Rosadziński K, Śliwiński Z. School screening for scoliosis: can surface topography replace examination with scoliometer? Scoliosis 2012; 7: 9. pmid:22472020
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Patias P, Grivas TB, Kaspiris A, Aggouris C, Drakoutos E. A review of the trunk surface metrics used as scoliosis and other deformities evaluation indices. Scoliosis 2010; 5: 12. pmid:20584340
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Benoni G, Willner S. Asymmetry of moire pattern at different levels of the spine, in: Drerup B, Frobin W, Hierholzer E (Eds.). Moire Fringe Topography and Spinal Deformity, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1983, 93–8.

[ref21] 21. Ruggerone M, Austin J. Moiré Topography in Scoliosis Correlations with Vertebral Lateral Curvature as Determined by Radiography. Phys Ther 1986; 66: 1072–7. pmid:3725892
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Denton T, Randall F, Deinlein D. The Use of Instant Moiré Photographs to Reduce Exposure from Scoliosis Radiographs. Spine 1992; 17: 509–12. pmid:1621149
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] PubMed/NCBI

[77] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Schutte LM, Narayanan U, Stout JL, Selber P, Gage JR, Schwartz MH. An index for quantifying deviations from normal gait. Gait Posture 2000; 11(1): 25–31. pmid:10664482
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] PubMed/NCBI

[81] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Romei M, Galli M, Motta F, Schwartz M, Crivellini M. Use of the normalcy index for the evaluation of gait pathology. Gait Posture 2004; 19(1): 85–90. pmid:14741307
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 5th ed., Taylor & Francis Group, LLC., New York, 2009.

[ref26] 26. Sherry A, Henson R. Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. J Pers Assess 2004; 84(1): 37–48.
View Article
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155–63. pmid:27330520
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] PubMed/NCBI

[93] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Winters TF Jr, Gage JR, Hicks R. Gait patterns in spastic hemiplegia in children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69: 437–41. pmid:3818706
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] PubMed/NCBI

[97] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Rodda J, Graham HK. Classification of gait patterns in spastic hemiplegia and spastic diplegia: a basis for a management algorithm. Eur J Neurol 2001; 8: 98–108. pmid:11851738
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Lin CJ, Guo LY, Su FC, Chou YL, Cherng RJ. Common abnormal kinetic patterns of the knee in gait in spastic diplegia of cerebral palsy. Gait Posture 2000; 11: 224–32. pmid:10802435
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Rodda JM, Graham HK, Carson L, Galea MP, Wolfe R. Sagittal gait patterns in spastic diplegia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 251–8. pmid:15046442
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Schwartz MH, Rozumalski A. The Gait Deviation Index: a new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait Posture. 2008; 28: 351–7. pmid:18565753
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical approval of the study protocol

2.2. Inclusion criteria

2.3. Exclusion criteria

2.4. Participants

2.5. Testing procedures

2.5.1 Surface topography of body posture.

2.5.2 3DIGA.

2.6. Statistical analyses

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Data.

S1 File.

Acknowledgments

References