Research Report

Effect of Foot Progression Angle on Peak Hip Moment during Gait in Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis

Yongwook Kim 1 , *
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Sciences, Jeonju University, Jeonju, South Korea
*ptkim@jj.ac.kr, Yongwook Kim, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Sciences, Jeonju University, Jeonju, South Korea

© Copyright 2024, Academy of KEMA. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 29, 2024 ; Revised: Apr 16, 2024 ; Accepted: Apr 16, 2024

Published Online: Jun 30, 2024

ABSTRACT

Background

Although various foot progression angle (FPA) modifications during gait have been applied to reduce peak knee adduction moment (KAM), few studies have investigated effects of applying toe-in and toe-out walking modifications on three-dimensional (3D) moments of the hip joint.

Purpose

To determine effects of two different artificial FPA walking trials on peak hip moment in individuals with knee osteoarthritis using a 3D motion analysis system and a force platform equipment.

Study design

A cross-sectional and repeated-measures study design.

Methods

Biomechanical data of the KAM and 3D peak hip moments were obtained from 27 participants. A 3D motion analysis system and two force platforms were used to measure KAM and 3D peak hip moments under three different FPA walking conditions: freely normal foot position (FNFP), maximal possible internal rotation foot position, and maximal possible external foot position (MEFP). Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare moment data among FPA modification walking conditions and both lower limb sides.

Results

The second peak KAM (F=5.624, p=0.014) occurring at 75%–100% stance phase during gait was significantly different among FPA gait conditions. The second peak KAM of the MEFP walking trials showed a significant decrease compared to that of the FNFP condition through post-hoc test (p<0.05). All peak moments generated at the hip joint in the stance phase during walking showed no significant differences in FPA modification walking trials (p>0.05). There were no interactive effects between FPA condition and knee sides for any KAM or peak hip moment values (p>0.05).

Conclusions

MEFP modification walking reduced the second peak KAM compared to the baseline walking and MIFP walking condition. All hip moments were unaffected by applying the three FPA modification conditions during gait. Results of this study suggest that FPA walking trials, which affects peak KAM of the knee joint, does not have a significant effect on the peak hip moment. Therefore, interventions of FPA walking retraining to patients with knee OA should be applied to each patient based on accurate biomechanical evaluation.

Keywords: Foot progression angle; Gait analysis; Hip moment; Knee osteoarthritis

Key Points

Question Does foot progression angle modification walking trial have an effect on the first and second peak knee adduction moments and peak hip moments in individuals with knee osteoarthritis?

Findings There were no significant changes in 3D peak hip moments when toe-in or toe-out foot modification walking trial was performed for participants with knee osteoarthritis during gait.

Meaning Gait retraining with foot progression angle modification to manage knee adduction moment in individuals with knee OA can generally be performed without considering kinetic moments normally generated at the hip joint.


INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (OA), known as a degenerative joint disease, is a common disease that occurs in approximately one-third of the population over the age of 60. It is rapidly increasing due to recent increase in average human lifespan and aging.1,2 Joint moments, such as knee adduction moment (KAM), are often used to evaluate clinical manifestations of knee OA.3 The moment that occurs during the stance phase when the body weight is supported during gait is a biomechanical variable calculated by multiplying the size of the three-dimensional (3D) ground reaction force and the distance of the lever arm from the joint center.46 In biomechanics, KAM typically has two butterfly figure peaks in the stance phase during gait. The first peak develops around the initial 25% stance and the second peak occurs around the 75% stance during walking.7 The peak KAM is influenced by various factors such as pain avoidance strategy, walking characteristics, and foot progression angle (FPA). Excessive increase in KAM is closely related to the exacerbation of knee OA.8,9

Previous studies verifying kinesiologic effects through changes in FPA, such as foot internal or external rotation during gait in patients with knee osteoarthritis, have shown a significant decrease in the second peak KAM10 with increased FPA and a significant decrease in the first peak KAM11 with decreased FPA walking modification. Alteration of gait characteristics such as FPA during walking may affect the kinematic and kinetic value of the lower extremities because changes in biomechanical variables that affect one joint and segment of the lower extremity can also affect other joints and segments connected to the musculoskeletal system.12,13 Many previous studies have reported that walking with foot internal or external rotation status can reduce two peak KAM in patients with OA in the medial compartment of the knee joint. However, peak KAM during walking varies depending on the target FPA level, individual anatomical characteristics, and kinesiologic specificity of the musculoskeletal link.8,10,11 Thus, verifying the effect of FPA modification gait training through consistent experimental settings on biomechanical variables of lower extremity joints using objectively reliable, high-performance equipment such as a 3D motion analysis system is important for patient evaluation and prognosis.

Previous studies applying the FPA modification walking intervention to patients with knee osteoarthritis have mainly verified its effect on KAM of the knee joint.1416 However, studies on the effect of FPA alteration walking on the 3D moment of the hip joint in patients with knee osteoarthritis are insufficient. According to previous studies, individuals with knee OA commonly develop hip OA because they share risk factors for OA in other joints of the lower extremities.17,18 Thus, the aim of this study was to determine effects of three FPA modification walking conditions on 3D biomechanical moments elicited to hip joints in individuals with knee OA using an objective and quantitative 3D motion analysis system.

METHODS

Subjects

Study subjects were 27 individuals (9 males and 18 females) with medial compartment knee OA. Inclusion criteria were: 1) no pain in both knee joints that would interfere with free walking; 2) no previous surgery knee or hip joints; 3) Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 or less; and 4) able to walk free without any walking aids. If subjects had clinical healthy conditions affecting gait or systemic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, they were excluded from this study. An average Kellgren-Lawrence grade of all participants was 1.5±0.42 (Grade I: n=10, Grade II: n=17). The Kellgren-Lawrence classification is a common method of classifying the severity of knee OA using five grades.3 Most participants in this study were of grade I (doubtful joint space narrowing and possible osteophytic lipping) or grade II (definite osteophytes and possible joint space narrowing). They were evaluated by an orthopedic specialist. The Institutional Review Board of Jeonju University approved our study methods and study design (jjIRB-200714-HR-2020-0708). All subjects voluntarily provided written informed consent. Mean age, height, and weight of all participants were 60.6±3.8 years, 159.7±11.6 cm, and 60.9±9.6 kg, respectively.

Study design and instrumentation for moment data acquisition

This study was executed with a cross-sectional study design. The experimental protocol included three different FPA walking conditions: freely normal foot position (FNFP), maximal possible internal rotation foot position (MIFP), and maximal possible external foot position (MEFP). To maintain a consistent foot rotation angle in each FPA modification condition, the foot rotation when subjects walked freely was set as the baseline FNFP. MIFP and MEFP conditions were then set by adding or subtracting about 20° to this angle.19 To assure consistent walking speed and step width, a tape line was emplaced on the gait way of experiment room.

Two force platforms (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) were set for sampling at 500 Hz to obtain kinetic moment data. A 3D motion capture system (Vicon Inc., Oxford, England) composed of six cameras and 8 m walking pathway was used to obtain moments of hip and knee joints during gait. The sampling rate of the infrared camera operation was set at 100 Hz. All biomechanical moment values obtained from the motion capture system and force platforms were processed with Nexus software version 1.8.5 (Vicon Inc., Oxford, England). The Nexus software created a lower limb segment model based on anatomical labeling of reflective markers.7 The final c3d file was created through the Nexus program which was used for processing all kinetic moment data.

Visual3D v6 professional program (C-Motion Inc., MD, USA) was used to create a virtual skeletal model based on previous c3d files of the Nexus software to analyze all biomechanical moment data through the Calibrated Anatomical System Technique (Figure 1).20 Kinematic motion data were low-pass filtered with a 4th order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 6 Hz. Kinetic moment data were low-pass filtered using a 4th order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 15 Hz.20 All kinetic moment data of the hip and knee joints were normalized by each subject’s body weight and analysis time of moment was normalized to 100% of the stance phase during gait.

jkema-8-1-29-g1
Figure 1. Visual3D representation of virtual musculoskeletal model according to foot internal and external rotation modification trials during gait. A: Maximal internal rotation foot position; B: Maximal external rotation foot position.
Download Original Figure
Gait analysis procedures

To conduct the walking experimental procedure, four cluster markers were attached bilaterally on the lower leg and thigh segments according to a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) model. In addition, twenty-four reflective markers (1.4 cm) were attached bilaterally on the first and fifth metatarsophalangeal joints, the dorsal center of the midfoot, medial and lateral hind foot, medial and lateral malleoli, medial and lateral femoral epicondyles, greater trochanters, anteriosuperior iliac spine, and posteriorsuperior iliac spine (Figure 2).7 After setting markers, static calibration was conducted to obtain hip and knee moments. First, the static motion capture process was conducted to analyze dynamic FPA gait for each subject. After acquiring static capture data, subjects were asked to walk freely according to FPA walking conditions. A total of 8–10 gait trials for each FPA condition that achieved the target walking line were performed. Hip and knee moment data were calculated for each FPA modification trial and averaged over each gait condition. The FPA walking order was randomly assigned.

jkema-8-1-29-g2
Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation of knee adduction moments according to foot rotation positions in stance phase during gait. *p<0.05, indicating significant difference between free normal foot position and maximal external foot position conditions.
Download Original Figure
Statistical analysis

A sample size was obtained with G*Power based on variables for two peak KAMs during internal or external rotation foot position walking in individuals with medial knee OA.14 The sample size obtained using study data was 23 people, with an effect size of 1.0, an alpha level of 0.05, and a power of 90%. For comparing hip moments developed with each FPA application, maximal peak moment variables elicited in each 3D motion plane were used. Peak 3D hip moment values for comparison according to FPA conditions were flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation moments that occurred in stance phase during each FPA walking condition. KMA values (first peak KAM during 0%–50% of stance phase, peak KAM at mid stance, and 2nd peak KAM during 50%–100%) of stance phase were compared between main FPA walking trials. Statistical analyses were executed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to investigate normal distribution. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustment was used to verify moment values of FPA conditions. If ANOVA results showed significant differences of main effects, a post hoc test was conducted to confirm pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

Mauchly’s assumption of sphericity was satisfied for all moment variables required for repeated measures ANOVA analysis. There were significant differences in the peak KAM during walking among FPA modification conditions according to ANOVA results (p<0.05) (Table 1). The second peak KAM (F=5.624, p=0.014) occurring at 75%–100% stance phase during gait was significantly different among FPA gait conditions (Table 1). The second peak KAM of the MEFP walking trials showed a significant decrease compared to that of the FNFP condition through post-hoc test (p<0.05) (Figure 2). On the other hand, all peak KAM moment variables except the second peak KAM showed no significant differences among FPA modification gait trials (p>0.05) (Table 1). There were no interactive effects between FPA condition and knee sides on any KAM values (p>0.05) (Table 1).

Table 1. Repeated measures analysis of variance comparison of peak knee adduction moments by foot position conditions and lower limb sides during gait
Knee adduction moment Level F p value
First peak at 0%–25% stance phase Foot conditions 2.521 0.081
Knee sides 0.245 0.529
Conditions × sides 1.450 0.191
Mid peak at 25%–70% stance phase Foot conditions 1.984 0.128
Knee sides 1.103 0.314
Conditions × sides 0.094 0.794
Second peak at 75%–100% stance phase Foot conditions 5.624 0.014*
Knee sides 1.335 0.245
Conditions × sides 1.111 0.283

* p<0.05.

Download Excel Table

There were no significant differences in any peak moments generated at the hip joint in the stance phase during walking among FPA modification walking trials (p>0.05) (Table 2). There were no interactive effects between FPA walking conditions and hip sides on any hip moment variables (p>0.05) (Figure 3).

Table 2. Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing three-dimensional peak hip moments by foot position conditions and lower limb side during gait
Hip moment (Nm·kg–1) Level F p value
Dorsiflexion moment peak
0%–50% stance
Foot conditions 2.574 0.095
Hip sides 1.963 0.164
Conditions × sides 0.946 0.331
Plantar flexion moment peak
50%–100% stance
Foot conditions 1.571 0.237
Hip sides 0.913 0.323
Conditions × sides 1.576 0.266
Inversion moment peak
50%–75% stance
Foot conditions 1.832 0.180
Hip sides 1.154 0.241
Conditions × sides 0.770 0.375
Eversion moment peak
0%–50% stance
Foot conditions 1.437 0.242
Hip sides 0.892 0.380
Conditions × sides 0.519 0.437
Internal rotation moment peak
0%–50% stance
Foot conditions 0.824 0.370
Hip sides 0.556 0.463
Conditions × sides 1.532 0.212
External rotation moment peak
50%–100% stance
Foot conditions 1.140 0.270
Hip sides 0.256 0.761
Conditions × sides 1.583 0.213
Download Excel Table
jkema-8-1-29-g3
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation of hip moments developed in three motion planes according to each foot position progression angle condition during gait.
Download Original Figure

DISCUSSION

This study was executed to investigate influences of gait retraining such as internal or external foot rotation gait on KAM and peak hip moments developed in the stance phase during gait in 27 individuals with knee OA. Results of this study showed that the first peak value of KAM in the FNFP walking condition was not significantly different from that in MIFP or MEFP walking condition. Many previous studies have reported that the first peak KAM is significantly reduced when walking in the MIFP modification condition compared to the baseline walking condition, the FNFP.3,8,21 The reason for such conflicting results might be due to differences in the number of study subjects, clinical characteristics of subjects, and inter-individual variability in biomechanical variables such as moments.

In contrast to the MIFP modification walking that showed no significant difference compared to FNFP or MEFP in the first peak KAM, the MEFP gait condition showed a significant decrease in the second peak KAM compared to the FNFP modification walking. These results were similar to previous studies reporting a decrease of the second peak KAM during foot external rotation walking in individuals with knee OA.6,10,19,22 The reason why the MEFP modification condition significantly reduced the second peak of the KAM compared to other FPA conditions might be because the loading center moved to the medial side as the knee joint axis moved laterally.4,6

Many studies have determined effects of toe-in and toe-out walking conditions on biomechanical variables of peak KAM of the knee joint in individuals with medial compartment knee OA.2,6,10,14,23,24 However, very few studies have examined effects of these walking conditions on the moment of the hip joint in patients with knee OA. The present study analyzed effects of different walking conditions on 3D hip moments along with their effects on peak KAM according to FPA during walking in individuals with knee OA. Results showed that there was no significant increase in hip joint moment value according to FPA walking conditions. In a previous study conducted on 50 patients with medial compartment knee OA, on average, there were no significant differences in the total peak hip moment in stance phase during gait.3 In addition, there was no difference in the change in total hip moment from baseline for 10° internal foot rotation walking condition (–1.9%±0.8% [range: −17.3%, 9.2%], p>0.05) or 10° external foot rotation walking condition (–1.4%±0.8%, [range: −16.5%, 12.4%], p>0.05) compared to baseline condition.3 However, they reported that 37 participants (74% of participants) showed a decrease in their total hip moment while 13 participants (26% of participants) showed an increase in their total hip moment when walking with internal or external foot rotation conditions that maximally reduced KAM.3 Such conflicting results compared to the current study might be due to differences in the number of study subjects, clinical characteristics of subjects, and inter-individual variability in biomechanical variables such as moments. Similar to this study, a previous study conducted on 12 normal subjects to determine the effect of walking under three FPA modification walking conditions on hip moment25 also reported no significant differences in peak flexion, extension, abduction, or adduction moments of the hip joint among three FPA modification walking conditions.25 Although experimental design and characteristics of study subjects of that study were different from those of the present study, these results were similar to those of this study.

Our results showed no significant increase in the hip joint moment value in the stance phase during walking under maximal toe-in or toe-out FPA walking condition. Therefore, the clinical implication of this study is that FPA modification gait training to manage KAM in individuals with knee OA can generally be performed without considering kinetic moments normally generated at the hip joint. However, in some participants, the IFP gait modification increased the peak hip adduction moment when ankle joint contact forces peaked. This indicates that for patients with musculoskeletal deficits of the hip joint such as hip OA, the effectiveness of toe-in or toe-out walking trials at the hip joint should be verified case by case before adopting FPA gait to manage the KAM. Although maximal internal or external rotation FPA gait trials showed a significant reduction of the first or second peak KAM, clinical application of the toe-in or toe-out gait trial for patients with knee OA needs caution. Since the first peak KAM is more important for deciding the current clinical status, disease stages, and prognosis of knee OA compared to the second peak KAM, reduction of the first peak KAM is considered more important.6 However, considering the negative impact of a 1% increase in KAM on knee OA symptoms,4 although not statistically significant, clinicians may notice a trend to increase the first maximum KAM during the MEFP walking condition and a trend to increase the second maximum KAM during MIFP walking.

This study had some limitations. First, since most participants had mild knee OA, results of this study could not be generalized to all knee OA patients. Second, because of difficulties in recruiting participants with knee OA, this research could not be performed with many subjects. Third, musculoskeletal characteristics such as ankle pronation or supination angle, hip anteversion or retroversion, and so on could not be assessed. Therefore, further studies are needed to investigate the influences of FPA modification walking interventions on kinematic and kinetic variables of lower joints and segments in a large number of individuals with knee OA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was conducted to investigate influences of artificial FPA modification walking trails on the first and second peak KAM and peak hip moments using a 3D motion analysis system and force platforms. Results showed that MEFP modification walking reduced the second peak KAM compared to baseline walking and MIFP walking conditions. In addition, all hip moments were unaffected by applying the three FPA modification conditions during gait. Results of this study suggest that FPA walking trial, which affects the peak KAM of the knee joint, does not have a significant effect on the peak hip moment. However, influences of the FPA retraining on various types of knee musculoskeletal disorders such as lateral compartment knee OA cannot be overlooked. Therefore, interventions of FPA walking retraining to patients with knee OA should be applied to each patient based on accurate biomechanical evaluation.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures:

None.

Funding/Support:

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (No. 2022R1F1A1064097).

Acknowledgment:

None.

Ethic Approval:

The IRB of Jeonju University approved the study methods and design (jjIRB-200714-HR-2020-0708).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: YW Kim.

Data acquisition: YW Kim.

Design of the work: YW Kim.

Data analysis: YW Kim.

Project administration: YW Kim.

Interpretation of data: YW Kim.

Writing – original draft: YW Kim.

Funding acquisition: YW Kim.

Writing–review&editing: YW Kim.

REFERENCES

1.

Deshpande BR, Katz JN, Solomon DH, et al. Number of persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the us: impact of race and ethnicity, age, sex, and obesity: Symptomatic knee OA in the US. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016; 68(12):1743-1750

2.

Hutchison L, D’Souza N, Grayson J, et al. Toe-in and toe-out gait retraining interventions to reduce proxy measures of medial knee joint load in people with medial knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2023; 134:107355

3.

Seagers K, Uhlrich SD, Kolesar JA, et al. Changes in foot progression angle during gait reduce the knee adduction moment and do not increase hip moments in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. J Biomech. 2022; 141:111204

4.

Kim Y, Richards J, Lidtke RH, et al. Characteristics of clinical measurements between biomechanical responders and non-responders to a shoe designed for knee osteoarthritis. Gait Posture. 2018; 59:23-27

5.

Chehab EF, Favre J, Erhart-Hledik JC, et al. Baseline knee adduction and flexion moments during walking are both associated with 5-year cartilage changes in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014; 22(11):1833-1839

6.

Shull PB, Shultz R, Silder A, et al. Toe-in gait reduces the first peak knee adduction moment in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J Biomech. 2013; 46(1):122-128

7.

Kim Y. Effects of foot-toe orthoses on moment and range of motion of knee joint in individuals with hallux valgus. Life (Basel). 2023; 13(5):1162

8.

Simic M, Hinman RS, Wrigley TV, et al. Gait modification strategies for altering medial knee joint load: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011; 63(3):405-426

9.

Kepple TM, Segel KL, Stanhope SJ. Relative contributions of the lower extremity joint moments to forward progression and support during gait. Gait Posture. 1997; 6(1):1-8

10.

Guo M, Axe MJ, Manal K. The influence of foot progression angle on the knee adduction moment during walking and stair climbing in pain free individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Gait Posture. 2007; 26(3):436-441

11.

Mündermann A, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP. Secondary gait changes in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: increased load at the ankle, knee, and hip during walking. Arthritis Rheum. 2005; 52(9):2835-2844

12.

Queen RM, Sparling TL, Schmitt D. Hip, knee, and ankle osteoarthritis negatively affects mechanical energy exchange. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(9):2055-2063

13.

Schmitt D, Vap A, Queen RM. Effect of end-stage hip, knee, and ankle osteoarthritis on walking mechanics. Gait Posture. 2015; 42(3):373-379

14.

Wang S, Mo S, Chung RCK, et al. How foot progression angle affects knee adduction moment and angular impulse in patients with and without medial knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021; 73(12):1763-1776

15.

Gholami S, Torkaman G, Bahrami F, et al. Gait modification with subject-specific foot progression angle in people with moderate knee osteoarthritis: investigation of knee adduction moment and muscle activity. Knee. 2022; 35:124-132

16.

Tokunaga K, Nakai Y, Matsumoto R, et al. Effect of foot progression angle and lateral wedge insole on a reduction in knee adduction moment. J Appl Biomech. 2016; 32(5):454-461

17.

Murphy LB, Helmick CG, Schwartz TA, et al. One in four people may develop symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in his or her lifetime. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010; 18(11):1372-1379

18.

Felson DT, Parkes M, Carter S, et al. The efficacy of a lateral wedge insole for painful medial knee osteoarthritis after prescreening: a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71(6):908-915

19.

Lynn SK, Kajaks T, Costigan PA. The effect of internal and external foot rotation on the adduction moment and lateral-medial shear force at the knee during gait. J Sci Med Sport. 2008; 11(5):444-451

20.

Collins TD, Ghoussayni SN, Ewins DJ, et al. A six degrees-of-freedom marker set for gait analysis: repeatability and comparison with a modified Helen Hayes set. Gait Posture. 2009; 30(2):173-180

21.

Lindsey B, Eddo O, Caswell SV, et al. Reductions in peak knee abduction moment in three previously studied gait modification strategies. Knee. 2020; 27(1):102-110

22.

Hurwitz DE, Ryals AB, Case JP, et al. The knee adduction moment during gait in subjects with knee osteoarthritis is more closely correlated with static alignment than radiographic disease severity, toe out angle and pain. J Orthop Res. 2002; 20(1):101-107

23.

Rutherford DJ, Hubley-Kozey CL, Deluzio KJ, et al. Foot progression angle and the knee adduction moment: a cross-sectional investigation in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008; 16(8):883-889

24.

Cho Y, Kim M, Lee W. Effect of proprioceptive training on foot posture, lower limb alignment, and knee adduction moment in patients with degenerative knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015; 27(2):371-374

25.

Bowsher KA, Vaughan CL. Effect of foot-progression angle on hip joint moments during gait. J Biomech. 1995; 28(6):759-762

한국연구재단 등재학술지 선정

KEMA학회 학술지인 'JMST(Journal of Musculoskeletal Science and Technology)'가 
2022년 한국연구재단의 학술지평가에서 등재학술지로 선정되었습니다.

등재지 선정을 위해 수고하고 애써주신 모든 분들에게 감사를 드리며, 아낌없는
헌신과 협조에 감사드립니다.

현재 JMST는 연구자들의 부담을 줄이기 위해 연회비/심사료/게재료를 받지 않고 있습니다.
또한, 사사 표기를 통해 연구비 지원 여부를 밝히는 경우에도 게재료를 받지 않고 있습니다.

많은 관심과 양질의 논문 투고를 부탁 드립니다.

감사합니다.  

I don't want to open this window for a day.