These results suggest that reliable screening of ‘‘at risk’’ people for specific movement tasks may certainly be possible with a 2Dmethod.
Although it may provide a cost effective alternative to current 3D motion analysis technologies, the relatively large processing requirements inherent in the 2D approach, particularly the manual identification of joint centres, does not lend itself to the already labour intensive requirements of intervention training programmes.
Automated marker
tracking software is available,
30
and markerless methods are
being developed,
31
which would significantly expedite the
processing of 2D video data obtained with low cost cameras.
Such technologies should at the very least be considered for
large scale intervention studies aimed at prevention of knee
injuries related to dynamic valgus. However, it is crucial to
first evaluate the reliability of a 2D video approach for the
specific population/s and movement/s to be tested