SPIRA: an automatic system to support lower limb injury assessment

  • Carlos BailonEmail author
  • Miguel Damas
  • Hector Pomares
  • Oresti Banos
Original Research


Lower limb injuries, especially those related to the knee joint, are some of the most common and severe injuries among sport practitioners. Consequently, a growing interest in the identification of subjects with high risk of injury has emerged during last years. One of the most commonly used injury risk factor is the measurement of joint angles during the execution of dynamic movements. To that end, techniques such as human motion capture and video analysis have been widely used. However, traditional procedures to measure joint angles present certain limitations, which makes this practice not practical in common clinical settings. This work presents SPIRA, a novel 2D video analysis system directed to support practitioners during the evaluation of joint angles in functional tests. The system employs an infrared camera to track retro-reflective markers attached to the patient’s body joints and provide a real-time measurement of the joint angles in a cost-and-time-effective way. The information gathered by the sensor is processed and managed through a computer application that guides the expert during the execution of the tests and expedites the analysis of the results. In order to show the potential of the SPIRA system, a case study has been conducted, performing the analysis with the both the proposed system and a gold-standard in 2D offline video analysis. The results (ICC(\(\rho\)) = 0.996) reveal a good agreement between both tools and prove the reliability of SPIRA.


Injury risk Lower limb Joint angles Marker tracking Computer vision Kinect 2D video analysis 



This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) Projects TIN2015-71873-R and TIN2015-67020-P together with the European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER). This work has also been partially supported by the UGR Research Starting Grant 2017, the FPU Spanish Grant FPU16/04376 and the Dutch UT-CTIT project HoliBehave.


  1. Acevedo R, Rivera-Vega A, Miranda G, Micheo W (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament injury: identification of risk factors and prevention strategies. Curr Sports Med Rep 13(3):186–191. Google Scholar
  2. Bailon C, Damas M, Pomares H, Banos O (2017) Automatic 2D motion capture system for joint angle measurement. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 71–81.
  3. Banos O, Moral-Munoz J, Diaz-Reyes I, Arroyo-Morales M, Damas M, Herrera-Viedma E, Hong C, Lee S, Pomares H, Rojas I, Villalonga C (2015) mdurance: a novel mobile health system to support trunk endurance assessment. Sensors 15(6):13159–13183. Google Scholar
  4. Bell AL, Brand RA, Pedersen DR (1989) Prediction of hip joint centre location from external landmarks. Human Mov Sci 8(1):3–16. Google Scholar
  5. Bland J, Altman D (1990) A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 20(5):337–340. Google Scholar
  6. Booth M, Orr R (2017) Time-loss injuries in sub-elite and emerging Rugby league players. J Sports Sci Med 16:295–301Google Scholar
  7. Bort-Roig J, Gilson ND, Puig-Ribera A, Contreras RS, Trost SG (2014) Measuring and influencing physical activity with smartphone technology: a systematic review. Sports Med 44(5):671–686. Google Scholar
  8. Bouwmans T, Porikli F, Höferlin B, Vacavant A (2015) Background modeling and foreground detection for video surveillance, 1st edn. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, oCLC: 934765046Google Scholar
  9. Damsted C, Larsen LH, Nielsen RO (2015) Reliability of video-based identification of footstrike pattern and video time frame at initial contact in recreational runners. Gait Posture 42(1):32–35. Google Scholar
  10. Davoody N, Hagglund M (2016) Care professionals’ perceived usefulness of ehealth for post-discharge stroke patients. Stud Health Technol Inf 228:589–593. Google Scholar
  11. DiCesare CA, Bates NA, Meyer GD, Hewett TE (2014) The validity of 2-dimensional measurement of trunk angle during dynamic tasks. Int J Sports Phys Ther 9(4):420–427Google Scholar
  12. EmguCV (2017) EmguCV library. Accessed 09 Oct 2017
  13. Feller J, Webster KE (2013) Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. International Orthopaedics 37(2):285–290. Google Scholar
  14. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Koes BW (2007) Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 41(8):469–480. Google Scholar
  15. Guerra-Filho GB (2005) Optical motion capture: theory and implementation. J Theor Appl Inf (RITA) 12(2):61–89Google Scholar
  16. Herrington L (2014) Knee valgus angle during single leg squat and landing in patellofemoral pain patients and controls. KNEE 21(2):514–517. Google Scholar
  17. Herrington L, Munro A (2010) Drop jump landing knee valgus angle: normative data in a physically active population. Phys Ther Sport 11(2):56–59. Google Scholar
  18. Hewett TE, Myer GD (2011) The mechanistic connection between the trunk, hip, knee, and anterior cruciate ligament injury. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 39(4):161–166. Google Scholar
  19. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, Heidt Robert SJ, Colosimo AJ, McLean SG, van den Bogert AJ, Paterno MV, Succop P (2005) Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 33(4):492–501.
  20. Hewett TE, Di Stasi SL, Myer GD (2013) Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 41(1):216–224. Google Scholar
  21. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J (2007) Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train 42(2):311–319Google Scholar
  22. Kato S, Urabe Y, Kawamura K (2008) Alignment control exercise changes lower extremity movement during stop movements in female basketball players. Knee 15(4):299–304. Google Scholar
  23. Kinovea Association (2017) Kinovea. Accessed 09 Oct 2017
  24. Li L (2014) Time-of-flight camera—an introduction. Technical White Paper SLOA190B, Texas InstrumentsGoogle Scholar
  25. LiveCharts (2017) LiveCharts library. Accessed 09 Oct 2017
  26. Mather RC, Koenig L, Kocher MS, Dall TM, Gallo P, Scott DJ, Bach BR, Spindler KP (2013) Societal and economic impact of anterior cruciate ligament tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(19):1751–1759. Google Scholar
  27. Microsoft (2014b) Kinect for windows v2.
  28. Microsoft (2017a) .NET Framework.
  29. Microsoft (2017b) Windows presentation foundation (WPF).
  30. Moral-Muñoz JA, Esteban-Moreno B, Arroyo-Morales M, Cobo MJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Agreement between face-to-face and free software video analysis for assessing hamstring flexibility in adolescents. J Strength Condition Res 29(9):2661–2665. Google Scholar
  31. Müller B, Ilg W, Giese MA, Ludolph N (2017) Validation of enhanced kinect sensor based motion capturing for gait assessment. PLoS One.
  32. Munro AG (2013) The use of two-dimensional motion analysis and functional performance tests for assessment of knee injury risk behaviours in athletes. PhD thesis, University of Salford, Salford, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Munro AG, Herrington L, Carolan M (2012) Reliability of 2-dimensional video assessment of frontal-plane dynamic knee valgus during common athletic screening tasks. J Sport Rehabilit 21(1):7–11Google Scholar
  34. Myles PS, Cui J (2007) Using the Bland–Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures. Br J Anaesth 99(3):309–311. Google Scholar
  35. Northern Digital Inc (2017) Optotrak certus.
  36. O’Connor S, McCaffrey N, Whyte EF, Moran KA (2017) Epidemiology of injury in male collegiate gaelic footballers in one season. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27(10):1136–1142. Google Scholar
  37. Olugbara OO, Adetiba E, Oyewole SA (2015) Pixel intensity clustering algorithm for multilevel image segmentation. Math Probl Eng 649802:19. Google Scholar
  38. Patro SGK, Sahu KK (2015) Normalization: a preprocessing stage. CoRR abs/1503.06462Google Scholar
  39. Piccardi M (2004) Background subtraction techniques: a review. In: Systems, man and cybernetics, 2004 IEEE international conference on, IEEE, vol 4, pp 3099–3104Google Scholar
  40. van Poppel D, Scholten-Peeters GGM, van Middelkoop M, Verhagen AP (2014) Prevalence, incidence and course of lower extremity injuries in runners during a 12-month follow-up period. Scand J Med Sci Sports 24(6):943–949. Google Scholar
  41. Prieto L, Lamarca R, Casado A (1998) La evaluación de la fiabilidad en las observaciones clínicas: el coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Med Clin 110(4):142–145Google Scholar
  42. Sarbolandi H, Lefloch D, Kolb A (2015) Kinect range sensing: structured-light versus time-of-flight kinect. Comput Vis Image Understand 139:1–20. Google Scholar
  43. Shapiro LG, Stockman GC (2002) Computer Vision, Prentice Hall, chap Binary Image Analysis, pp 69–73Google Scholar
  44. SQLite (2017) SQLite engine.
  45. Stickler L, Finley M, Gulgin H (2015) Relationship between hip and core strength and frontal plane alignment during a single leg squat. Phys Ther Sport 16(1):66–71. Google Scholar
  46. Szeliski R (2011) Computer vision: algorithms and applications. Texts in computer science, Springer, London Dordrecht Heidelberg New York, oCLC: 845585642Google Scholar
  47. Vicon Motion Systems Ltd (2002) Essential of motion capture. Tech. repGoogle Scholar
  48. Vicon Motion Systems Ltd (2017) Vicon cameras.
  49. Willson JD, Davis IS (2008) Utility of the frontal plane projection angle in females with patellofemoral pain. J Orthopaed Sports Phys Ther 38(10):606–615. Google Scholar
  50. Willson JD, Ireland ML, Davis I (2006) Core strength and lower extremity alignment during single leg squats. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38(5):945–952. Google Scholar
  51. Wyndow N, De Jong A, Rial K, Tucker K, Collins N, Vicenzino B, Russell T, Crossley K (2016) The relationship of foot and ankle mobility to the frontal plane projection angle in asymptomatic adults. J Foot Ankle Res 9(1):3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Architecture and Computer Technology, CITIC-UGR Research CenterUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Telemedicine GroupUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations