Free-living gait does not differentiate chronic mTBI patients compared to healthy controls.
Concussion
Gait
Inertial measurement unit
mTBI
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 05 2022
26 05 2022
Historique:
received:
21
07
2021
accepted:
18
05
2022
entrez:
26
5
2022
pubmed:
27
5
2022
medline:
31
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physical function remains a crucial component of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) assessment and recovery. Traditional approaches to assess mTBI lack sensitivity to detect subtle deficits post-injury, which can impact a patient's quality of life, daily function and can lead to chronic issues. Inertial measurement units (IMU) provide an opportunity for objective assessment of physical function and can be used in any environment. A single waist worn IMU has the potential to provide broad/macro quantity characteristics to estimate gait mobility, as well as more high-resolution micro spatial or temporal gait characteristics (herein, we refer to these as measures of quality). Our recent work showed that quantity measures of mobility were less sensitive than measures of turning quality when comparing the free-living physical function of chronic mTBI patients and healthy controls. However, no studies have examined whether measures of gait quality in free-living conditions can differentiate chronic mTBI patients and healthy controls. This study aimed to determine whether measures of free-living gait quality can differentiate chronic mTBI patients from controls. Thirty-two patients with chronic self-reported balance symptoms after mTBI (age: 40.88 ± 11.78 years, median days post-injury: 440.68 days) and 23 healthy controls (age: 48.56 ± 22.56 years) were assessed for ~ 7 days using a single IMU at the waist on a belt. Free-living gait quality metrics were evaluated for chronic mTBI patients and controls using multi-variate analysis. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis were used to determine outcome sensitivity to chronic mTBI. Free-living gait quality metrics were not different between chronic mTBI patients and controls (all p > 0.05) whilst controlling for age and sex. ROC and AUC analysis showed stride length (0.63) was the most sensitive measure for differentiating chronic mTBI patients from controls. Our results show that gait quality metrics determined through a free-living assessment were not significantly different between chronic mTBI patients and controls. These results suggest that measures of free-living gait quality were not impaired in our chronic mTBI patients, and/or, that the metrics chosen were not sensitive enough to detect subtle impairments in our sample.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physical function remains a crucial component of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) assessment and recovery. Traditional approaches to assess mTBI lack sensitivity to detect subtle deficits post-injury, which can impact a patient's quality of life, daily function and can lead to chronic issues. Inertial measurement units (IMU) provide an opportunity for objective assessment of physical function and can be used in any environment. A single waist worn IMU has the potential to provide broad/macro quantity characteristics to estimate gait mobility, as well as more high-resolution micro spatial or temporal gait characteristics (herein, we refer to these as measures of quality). Our recent work showed that quantity measures of mobility were less sensitive than measures of turning quality when comparing the free-living physical function of chronic mTBI patients and healthy controls. However, no studies have examined whether measures of gait quality in free-living conditions can differentiate chronic mTBI patients and healthy controls. This study aimed to determine whether measures of free-living gait quality can differentiate chronic mTBI patients from controls.
METHODS
Thirty-two patients with chronic self-reported balance symptoms after mTBI (age: 40.88 ± 11.78 years, median days post-injury: 440.68 days) and 23 healthy controls (age: 48.56 ± 22.56 years) were assessed for ~ 7 days using a single IMU at the waist on a belt. Free-living gait quality metrics were evaluated for chronic mTBI patients and controls using multi-variate analysis. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis were used to determine outcome sensitivity to chronic mTBI.
RESULTS
Free-living gait quality metrics were not different between chronic mTBI patients and controls (all p > 0.05) whilst controlling for age and sex. ROC and AUC analysis showed stride length (0.63) was the most sensitive measure for differentiating chronic mTBI patients from controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that gait quality metrics determined through a free-living assessment were not significantly different between chronic mTBI patients and controls. These results suggest that measures of free-living gait quality were not impaired in our chronic mTBI patients, and/or, that the metrics chosen were not sensitive enough to detect subtle impairments in our sample.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35619112
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01030-6
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-01030-6
pmc: PMC9137158
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2010 Jun;34(2):87-93
pubmed: 20588094
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(9):788-94
pubmed: 22149161
Hum Mov Sci. 2020 Feb;69:102557
pubmed: 31783306
Maturitas. 2015 Sep;82(1):116-22
pubmed: 25912425
J Neurotrauma. 2018 May 15;35(10):1167-1177
pubmed: 29078732
PM R. 2009 Jan;1(1):50-4
pubmed: 19627872
Sports Health. 2011 May;3(3):287-95
pubmed: 23016020
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 May 12;13(1):46
pubmed: 27175731
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(1):3-10
pubmed: 26409689
Mov Disord. 2016 Sep;31(9):1293-313
pubmed: 27452964
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019 Mar 14;74(4):500-506
pubmed: 29300849
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Mar;84(3):343-9
pubmed: 12638101
Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Jan;14(1):62-74
pubmed: 32770726
Gait Posture. 2012 Jun;36(2):316-8
pubmed: 22465705
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Feb;22(1):85-90
pubmed: 20561282
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020 Dec;80:105145
pubmed: 32836079
BMJ. 2010 Sep 09;341:c4467
pubmed: 20829298
J Pediatr. 2021 Dec;239:193-199
pubmed: 34450120
J Athl Train. 2020 Feb;55(2):116-123
pubmed: 31917599
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 22;16(12):e0261616
pubmed: 34936689
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:80-84
pubmed: 28578138
Gait Posture. 2016 Jul;48:194-201
pubmed: 27289221
J Sci Med Sport. 2013 Jan;16(1):2-7
pubmed: 22609052
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Apr 14;3:55
pubmed: 32337371
Age Ageing. 2011 Jan;40(1):14-23
pubmed: 20843964
Trends Neurosci. 2006 Aug;29(8):474-80
pubmed: 16820224
J Athl Train. 2019 Apr;54(4):429-438
pubmed: 30933608
Int J Psychophysiol. 2018 Oct;132(Pt A):25-30
pubmed: 29017781
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):46-54
pubmed: 26709585
J Sport Health Sci. 2017 Sep;6(3):299-301
pubmed: 30356612
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Jun;50(6):711-23
pubmed: 12814238
Gait Posture. 2018 May;62:157-166
pubmed: 29550695
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2020 May 28;8:0700108
pubmed: 32542118
Ann Biomed Eng. 2017 Sep;45(9):2135-2145
pubmed: 28540448
Med Eng Phys. 2021 Jan;87:9-29
pubmed: 33461679
Physiol Meas. 2017 Jan;38(1):N1-N15
pubmed: 27941238
Sensors (Basel). 2013 Dec 27;14(1):356-69
pubmed: 24379043
BMC Neurol. 2017 Feb 23;17(1):41
pubmed: 28231824
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;51(11):838-847
pubmed: 28446457
Mov Disord. 2013 Sep 15;28(11):1534-43
pubmed: 24132841
Gait Posture. 2017 Jun;55:87-93
pubmed: 28433867
Gait Posture. 2017 Feb;52:68-71
pubmed: 27883986
J Athl Train. 2015 Jun;50(6):578-88
pubmed: 25844853
Brain Inj. 2017;31(12):1674-1682
pubmed: 28872344
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jul 29;2:71
pubmed: 31372506
J Biomech. 2015 Sep 18;48(12):3364-8
pubmed: 26152463
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Dec 2;4(1):164
pubmed: 34857868
Med Eng Phys. 2015 Apr;37(4):400-7
pubmed: 25749552
Inj Epidemiol. 2020 Mar 2;7(1):7
pubmed: 32127044
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Jul;20(7):622-626
pubmed: 28169147
J Mov Disord. 2017 Jan;10(1):1-17
pubmed: 28122432
Am J Psychiatry. 1983 Jun;140(6):734-9
pubmed: 6846631
J Neurotrauma. 2020 Jan 1;37(1):139-145
pubmed: 31354032
Front Neurol. 2018 Apr 04;9:203
pubmed: 29670568
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Feb;95(2):353-9
pubmed: 24200875
J Neurotrauma. 2021 Jan 15;38(2):218-224
pubmed: 32495691
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):1-11
pubmed: 24263177
Gait Posture. 2014 Sep;40(4):487-92
pubmed: 25085660