4.7 Article

Comprehensive dynamic and kinematic analysis of the rodent hindlimb during over ground walking

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20288-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. AR3T Pilot Funding Program
  2. U.S. DOD Army - Medical Research Acquisition Activity [W81XWH-18-2-0036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study characterizes the spatiotemporal parameters, ground reaction forces, 3-D joint kinematics, 3-D joint kinetics, and energetics of gait in healthy rats through a comprehensive biomechanical workup. The findings have significant implications for the development and clinical application of improved regenerative therapeutics and rehabilitative therapies for extremity traumas and other musculoskeletal pathologies.
The rat hindlimb is a frequently utilized pre-clinical model system to evaluate injuries and pathologies impacting the hindlimbs. These studies have demonstrated the translational potential of this model but have typically focused on the force generating capacity of target muscles as the primary evaluative outcome. Historically, human studies investigating extremity injuries and pathologies have utilized biomechanical analysis to better understand the impact of injury and extent of recovery. In this study, we expand that full biomechanical workup to a rat model in order to characterize the spatiotemporal parameters, ground reaction forces, 3-D joint kinematics, 3-D joint kinetics, and energetics of gait in healthy rats. We report data on each of these metrics that meets or exceeds the standards set by the current literature and are the first to report on all these metrics in a single set of animals. The methodology and findings presented in this study have significant implications for the development and clinical application of the improved regenerative therapeutics and rehabilitative therapies required for durable and complete functional recovery from extremity traumas, as well as other musculoskeletal pathologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据