IMU-derived kinematics detect gait differences with age or knee osteoarthritis but differ from marker-derived inverse kinematics

Common in-lab, marker-based gait analyses may not represent daily, real-world gait. Real-world gait analyses may be feasible using inertial measurement units (IMUs), especially with recent advancements in open-source methods (e.g., OpenSense). Before using OpenSense to study real-world gait, we must determine whether these methods: (1) estimate joint kinematics similarly to traditional marker-based motion capture (MoCap) and (2) differentiate groups with clinically different gait mechanics. Healthy young and older adults and older adults with knee osteoarthritis completed this study. We captured MoCap and IMU data during overground walking at self-selected and faster speeds. MoCap and IMU kinematics were computed with appropriate OpenSim workflows. We tested whether sagittal kinematics differed between MoCap- and IMU-derived data, whether tools detected between-group differences similarly, and whether kinematics differed between tools by speed. MoCap data showed more flexion than IMU data (hip: 0-47 and 65-100% stride, knee: 0-38 and 58-91% stride, ankle: 18-100% stride). Group kinematics differed at the hip (young extension > knee osteoarthritis at 30-47% stride) and ankle (young plantar flexion > older healthy at 62-65% stride). Group-by-tool interactions occurred at the hip (61-63% stride). Significant tool-by-speed interactions were found, with hip and knee flexion increasing more for MoCap than IMU data with speed (hip: 12-15% stride, knee: 60-63% stride). While MoCap- and IMU-derived kinematics differed, our results suggested that the tools similarly detected clinically meaningful differences in gait. Results of the current study suggest that IMU-derived kinematics with OpenSense may enable the valid and reliable evaluation of gait in real-world, unobserved settings.