Reliability of three different methods for assessing amputee residuum shape and volume: 3D scanners vs. circumferential measurements.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2022
01 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
10
08
2021
accepted:
06
01
2022
pubmed:
24
3
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
entrez:
23
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Objective and reliable methods are necessary to monitor and manage amputee residuum shape and volume and design prosthetic residuum-prosthesis interfaces. Portable 3D scanners are potential solutions for digitally recording the amputee residuum characteristics. To investigate test-operator reliability when measuring lower limb residuum shape and volume using two different types of 3D laser-free scanners compared with tape measurements generally adopted in clinic. Ten lower limb amputees took part in this study. Residuum volume, cross sectional areas, and perimeter lengths were measured by three different operators on three different occasions using two types of 3D scanners (Artec Eva scanner and OMEGA Scanner 3D) and circumferential measurements. Variance components, intraclass correlation coefficients and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability coefficients were calculated for all measurement conditions. Residuum volume outputs ranged from 569 to 3115 mL. The factor contributing mostly to the residuum volume error variance was the shape of the residuum (75.85%). Volume intraclass correlation coefficients for both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability exceeded 0.9 for all three conditions. Volume reliability coefficients ranged from 70.68 mL (Artec Eva intra-rater reliability) to 256.85 mL (circumferential measurements inter-rater reliability). Shape relative error reached the highest values for the circumferential measurements (>10% for the cross-sectional areas and >5% for the perimeters). The Artec Eva scanner resulted in the lowest test-operator reliability coefficients. However, both investigated scanners are a potential alternative for measuring small and macroscopic changes in residuum characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Objective and reliable methods are necessary to monitor and manage amputee residuum shape and volume and design prosthetic residuum-prosthesis interfaces. Portable 3D scanners are potential solutions for digitally recording the amputee residuum characteristics.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate test-operator reliability when measuring lower limb residuum shape and volume using two different types of 3D laser-free scanners compared with tape measurements generally adopted in clinic.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Ten lower limb amputees took part in this study. Residuum volume, cross sectional areas, and perimeter lengths were measured by three different operators on three different occasions using two types of 3D scanners (Artec Eva scanner and OMEGA Scanner 3D) and circumferential measurements.
METHODS
METHODS
Variance components, intraclass correlation coefficients and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability coefficients were calculated for all measurement conditions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Residuum volume outputs ranged from 569 to 3115 mL. The factor contributing mostly to the residuum volume error variance was the shape of the residuum (75.85%). Volume intraclass correlation coefficients for both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability exceeded 0.9 for all three conditions. Volume reliability coefficients ranged from 70.68 mL (Artec Eva intra-rater reliability) to 256.85 mL (circumferential measurements inter-rater reliability). Shape relative error reached the highest values for the circumferential measurements (>10% for the cross-sectional areas and >5% for the perimeters).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Artec Eva scanner resulted in the lowest test-operator reliability coefficients. However, both investigated scanners are a potential alternative for measuring small and macroscopic changes in residuum characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35320149
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000105
pii: 00006479-202208000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
327-334Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Lilja M, Öberg T. Proper time for definitive transtibial prosthetic fitting. J Prosthetic Orthot 1997; 9: 90.
Sanders JE, Fatone S. Residual limb volume change: systematic review of measurement and management. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011; 48: 949–986.
Board WJ, Street GM, Caspers C. A comparison of trans-tibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 202–209.
Zachariah SG, Saxena R, Fergason JR, et al. Shape and volume change in the transtibial residuum over the short term: preliminary investigation of six subjects. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004 ;41: 683–694.
Paternò L, Ibrahimi M, Rosini E, et al. Transfemoral residual limb volume change due to physical activity. In: ICRN International Conference on NeuroRehabilitation, Pisa, Italy, 2018: 146-150.
Solav D, Moerman KM, Jaeger AM, Herr HM. A framework for measuring the time-varying shape and full-field deformation of residual limbs using 3-D digital image correlation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2019; 2740–2752.
Meulenbelt HEJ, Dijkstra PU, Jonkman MF, et al. Skin problems in lower limb amputees: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 603–608.
Meulenbelt HEJ, Geertzen JHB, Jonkman MF, et al. Determinants of skin problems of the stump in lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90, 74–81.
Laing S, Lee PV, Goh JC. Engineering a trans-tibial prosthetic socket for the lower limb amputee. Ann Acad Med 2011; 40: 252–259.
Mak AFT, Zhang M, Boone DA. State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38: 161–173.
Paternò L, Ibrahimi M, Gruppioni E, et al. Sockets for limb prostheses: a review of existing technologies and open challenges. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2018; 65: 1996–2010.
Lusardi M. Postoperative and preprosthetic care. In Orthotics and Prosthetics in Rehabilitation. e-book Elsevier, 2013:532–594.
Armitage L, Kark L, Czerniec S, et al. Reliability and validity of measurement tools for residual limb volume in people with limb amputations: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2019; 99: 612–626.
Bolt A, de Boer-Wilzing VG, Geertzen JHB, et al. Variation in measurements of transtibial stump model volume: a comparison of five methods. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 89: 376–384.
De Boer-Wilzing VG, Bolt A, Geertzen JH, et al. Variation in results of volume measurements of stumps of lower- limb amputees: a comparison of 4 methods. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 941–946.
Kofman R, Beekman AM, Emmelot CH, et al. Measurement properties and usability of non-contact scanners for measuring transtibial residual limb volume. Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42: 280–287.
Mehmood W, Abd Razak N, Lau M, et al. Comparative study of the circumferential and volumetric analysis between conventional casting and three-dimensional scanning methods for transtibial socket: a preliminary study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2019; 233: 181–192.
Seminati E, Talamas DC, Young M, et al. Validity and reli- ability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0184498.
Dickinson AS, Steer JW, Woods CJ, et al. Registering methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2016; 53: 207–218.
Armitage L, Kwah LK, Kark L. Reliability and validity of the iSense optical scanner for measuring volume of transtibial residual limb models. Prosthet Orthot Int 2019; 43: 213–220.
Dickinson AS, Donovan-Hall M, Srors S, et al. Assessing and benchmarking low cost 3D scanners for transtibial prosthetic socket design. In: APOSM Asian Prosthetic and Orthotic Scientific Meeting 2018 Bangkok, Thailand.
Arifin WN. A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies. Education in Medicine Journal 2018; 10(3): 67–76.
Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1331–1335.
Omega Scanner 3D—WillowWood. https://www.willowwood.com/products-services/omega/hardware/omega-scanner-3d/ .
Dickinson A, Donovan-Hall MK, Kheng S, et al. Selecting Appropriate 3D Scanning Technologies for Prosthetic Socket Design and 1 Transtibial Residual Limb Shape Characterisation. 2020. https://engrxiv.org/s4kbn/ .
Coltman CE, McGhee DE, Steele JR. Three-dimensional scanning in women with large, ptotic breasts: implications for bra cup sizing and design. Ergonomics 2016: 1–7.
Yamamoto S, Miyachi H, Fujii H, et al. Intuitive facial imaging method for evaluation of postoperative swelling: a combination of 3-dimensional computed tomography and laser surface scanning in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016: 74: 2506.e1–2506.e10.
Hopkins WG. Precision of the Measurement. 2000. www.newstats.org/precision.html .
Hopkins WG. Spreadsheet for Analysis of Validity and Reliability. 2015. http://sportsci.org/2015/ValidRely.htm .
Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 2000; 30: 1–15.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–160.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research. Application to Practice. 3rd ed. 2014. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Cagle JC, Yu AJ, Ciol MA, et al. Amputee socks: thickness of multiple socks. Prosthet Orthot Int 2014; 38: 405–412.
Van Stuivenberg-Vrielink C, de Laat F, Meijer R, et al. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility and validity of an indirect volume measurement in transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34: 20–30.
Tantua AT, Geertzen JH, van den Dungen JJ, et al. Reduction of residual limb volume in people with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51: 1119–1126.
Steer JW, Stocks O, Parson J, et al. Ampscan: a lightweight Python package for shape analysis of prosthetics and orthotics. J Open Source Softw 2020; 13; 5(48): 2060.