Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL): Characterization of Normative Kinematics and Performance.
Journal
PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1934-1563
Titre abrégé: PM R
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101491319
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
26
05
2019
accepted:
23
11
2019
pubmed:
4
12
2019
medline:
3
8
2021
entrez:
3
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evaluation of maladaptive compensatory movement is important to objectively identify the impact of prosthetic rehabilitative intervention on body mechanics. The Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL) scores this type of compensation by comparing movements of the prosthesis user to movements of individuals with intact, sound upper limbs (ULs). However, expected movements of individuals with sound, intact ULs have not been studied for the set of tasks performed in the CAPPFUL. To enhance the scoring approach for the maladaptive compensatory movement domain of the CAPPFUL by defining normative kinematic movement and characterizing variability and repeatability. Clinical measurement. Laboratories at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and University of Texas-Arlington. Convenience sample of 20 participants with no upper limb (UL) disability or impairment. Not applicable. Kinematic trajectories, range of motion, maximum angle, and completion time were calculated. Repeatability and intersubject variability were assessed by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient (R), adjusted coefficient of multiple correlation (CMCadj), and max SD (SDmax) for nine joint angles at the elbow, shoulder, neck, and torso. For most joints evaluated, repeatability was lower (R < 0.8) for CAPPFUL 3-Zip vest, CAPPFUL 7-Cut w/ knife, and CAPPFUL 8-Squeeze water, implying inconsistent approaches within a subject from trial to trial for a given task. For most tasks, the joint angle SDmax across all participants was <20°. The approach for completing CAPPFUL 1 - Weights in crate and CAPPFUL 4 - Pick up dice was generally similar across participants (CMCadj >0.4). For other tasks, however, different approaches across participants at the torso and shoulder joint can be seen. This work established the expected movements of individuals with sound, intact ULs for tasks performed in the CAPPFUL that can be used to inform consistent, standardized scoring of the maladaptive compensatory movement domain.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evaluation of maladaptive compensatory movement is important to objectively identify the impact of prosthetic rehabilitative intervention on body mechanics. The Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL) scores this type of compensation by comparing movements of the prosthesis user to movements of individuals with intact, sound upper limbs (ULs). However, expected movements of individuals with sound, intact ULs have not been studied for the set of tasks performed in the CAPPFUL.
OBJECTIVE
To enhance the scoring approach for the maladaptive compensatory movement domain of the CAPPFUL by defining normative kinematic movement and characterizing variability and repeatability.
DESIGN
Clinical measurement.
SETTING
Laboratories at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and University of Texas-Arlington.
PARTICIPANTS
Convenience sample of 20 participants with no upper limb (UL) disability or impairment.
INTERVENTIONS
Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS
Kinematic trajectories, range of motion, maximum angle, and completion time were calculated. Repeatability and intersubject variability were assessed by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient (R), adjusted coefficient of multiple correlation (CMCadj), and max SD (SDmax) for nine joint angles at the elbow, shoulder, neck, and torso.
RESULTS
For most joints evaluated, repeatability was lower (R < 0.8) for CAPPFUL 3-Zip vest, CAPPFUL 7-Cut w/ knife, and CAPPFUL 8-Squeeze water, implying inconsistent approaches within a subject from trial to trial for a given task. For most tasks, the joint angle SDmax across all participants was <20°. The approach for completing CAPPFUL 1 - Weights in crate and CAPPFUL 4 - Pick up dice was generally similar across participants (CMCadj >0.4). For other tasks, however, different approaches across participants at the torso and shoulder joint can be seen.
CONCLUSION(S)
This work established the expected movements of individuals with sound, intact ULs for tasks performed in the CAPPFUL that can be used to inform consistent, standardized scoring of the maladaptive compensatory movement domain.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
870-881Informations de copyright
©2019 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Références
Kearns NT, Peterson JK, Smurr Walters L, Jackson WT, Miguelez JM, Ryan T. Development and psychometric validation of capacity assessment of prosthetic performance for the upper limb (CAPPFUL). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:1789-1797.
Wang S, Hsu CJ, Trent L, et al. Evaluation of performance-based outcome measures for the upper limb: a comprehensive narrative review. PM&R. 2018;10:951-962.
Lindner HY, Natterlund BS, Hermansson LM. Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures: review and content comparison based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34(2):109-128.
Wright V. Prosthetic outcome measures for use with upper limb amputees: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, 1970 to 2009. J Prosthet Orthot. 2009;21(9):P3-P63.
Gates DH, Walters LS, Cowley J, Wilken JM, Resnik L. Range of motion requirements for upper-limb activities of daily living. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(1):7001350010p1-7001350010p10.
Lang, A., Defining Normative Upper Limb Kinematics during Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) Task Performance [masterʼs thesis]. University of Waterloo; 2015.
Kontson K, Wang S, Barovsky S, et al. Assessing kinematic variability during performance of Jebsen-Taylor hand function test (JHFT) [published online ahead of print March 8, 2019]. J Hand Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2018.10.002.
Bouwsema H, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM. Movement characteristics of upper extremity prostheses during basic goal-directed tasks. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010;25(6):523-529.
Kontson K, Marcus I, Myklebust B, Civillico E. Targeted box and blocks test: normative data and comparison to standard tests. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0177965.
Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123(5):940-953.
Kontson K, Marcus IP, Myklebust BM, Civillico EF. An integrated movement analysis framework to study upper limb function: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(10):1874-1883.
Gombatto SP, DʼArpa N, Landerholm S, et al. Differences in kinematics of the lumbar spine and lower extremities between people with and without low back pain during the down phase of a pick up task, an observational study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017;28:25-31.
Cutti AG, Paolini G, Troncossi M, Cappello A, Davalli A. Soft tissue artefact assessment in humeral axial rotation. Gait Posture. 2005;21(3):341-349.
Muray, I.A., Determining Upper Limb Kinematics and Dynamics During Everyday Tasks, in Department of Mechanical, Materials, and Manufacturing Engineering [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Newcastle; 1999.
Stagni R, Fantozzi S, Cappello A, Ussia L, Leardini A. Propagation of skin motion artefacts to knee joint kinematics. Gait Posture. 2002;16(suppl 1):211-212.
Iosa M et al. Assessment of waveform similarity in clinical gait data: the linear fit method. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:214156.
Kleissen RFM, Litjens MCA, Baten CTM, Harlaar J, Hof AL, Zilvold G. Consistency of surface EMG patterns obtained during gait from three laboratories using standardised measurement technique. Gait Posture. 1997;6(3):200-209.
Picerno P, Cereatti A, Cappozzo A. Joint kinematics estimate using wearable inertial and magnetic sensing modules. Gait Posture. 2008;28(4):588-595.
Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, Gainey J, Gorton G, Cochran GVB. Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res. 1989;7(6):849-860.
Kutner M et al. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin; 2005.
Major MJ, Stine RL, Heckathorne CW, Fatone S, Gard SA. Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:132.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Evans JD. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co; 1996.
Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386-391.
Haverkate L, Smit G, Plettenburg DH. Assessment of body-powered upper limb prostheses by able-bodied subjects, using the box and blocks test and the nine-hole peg test. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(1):109-116.
Oxford Grice K, Vogel KA, le V, Mitchell A, Muniz S, Vollmer MA. Adult norms for a commercially available nine hole peg test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(5):570-573.
Chen, Y.C., H.J. Lee, and K.H. Lin. Measurement of body joint angles for physical therapy based on mean shift tracking using two low cost Kinect images. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. 2015.
Morrow MMB, Lowndes B, Fortune E, Kaufman KR, Hallbeck MS. Validation of inertial measurement units for upper body kinematics. J Appl Biomech. 2017;33(3):227-232.