Validation of a Wearable System for Lower Extremity Assessment.
Gait Analysis
Knee; Osteoarthritis
Remote Monitor
Journal
Orthopaedic surgery
ISSN: 1757-7861
Titre abrégé: Orthop Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101501666
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
16
06
2023
received:
22
02
2023
accepted:
24
06
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
7
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Remote assessment and diagnosis of functional impairment caused by osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can achieve early intervention of patients' functional impairment, prevent the deterioration of OA of the knee, and provide functional remote screening for patients with knee OA. This study introduced an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor-based system to assess lower extremity function and perform gait analysis. Then, we compared its accuracy to gold-standard motion capture and gait measurement systems. Nine adults were selected to participate in a comparative study of gait assessment outcomes using an IMU sensor-based wearable system, a gold-standard motion capture system, and a pressure-based gait analysis system. The subject walked on a path that incorporated all three systems. Data analysis was performed on spatiotemporal gait parameters, including velocity, cycle time, cadence, and stride length. This was followed by gait phases, including stance, swing, double stance, and single limb support phases. Data were processed using the data processing software of each system. An independent sample t-test was conducted for inter-group comparison to analyze the data. The spatiotemporal gait parameters of the systems demonstrated excellent consistency, and the gait phases showed high consistency. Compared to the gold-standard pressure-based gait analysis system (the GATERite system), the mean gait cycle time results were 1.124 s vs. 1.127 s (p = 0.404); cadence was 93.333 steps/min vs. 94.189 steps/min (p = 0.482); stance phase was 60.89% vs. 63.26% (p < 0.001); swing phase was 39.11% vs. 36.74% (p < 0.001); stride length was 1.404 m vs. 1.420 m (p = 0.743); speed was 1.093 m/s vs. 1.110 m/s (p = 0.725). Compared to the gold-standard video-based motion capture system, the root mean square error was 2.7° for the hip angle and 2.6° for the knee angle. This IMU-based wearable system delivered precise measuring results to evaluate patients with knee OA. This technology can also be used to guide rehabilitation exercises for patients with knee OA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37545175
doi: 10.1111/os.13836
pmc: PMC10622265
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2911-2917Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Mar;22(3):363-88
pubmed: 24462672
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Aug;17(8):563-70
pubmed: 26154338
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Apr 9;20(1):160
pubmed: 30967131
Can J Surg. 2022 Sep 1;65(5):E562-E566
pubmed: 36302132
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:2965-8
pubmed: 25570613
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Jun 06;16:121
pubmed: 27268048
J Biomech. 2009 Dec 11;42(16):2678-85
pubmed: 19782986
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Oct 30;12(11):
pubmed: 36359475
Sensors (Basel). 2014 Apr 16;14(4):6891-909
pubmed: 24743160
J Biomech. 2009 Oct 16;42(14):2330-5
pubmed: 19665712
Int Orthop. 2019 Mar;43(3):531-538
pubmed: 30368550
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6923-6
pubmed: 22255930
Med Eng Phys. 2017 Jun;44:1-7
pubmed: 28408157
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000 Jan;71(1):68-71
pubmed: 10632133
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Feb;11(Suppl 1):S125-S129
pubmed: 31992932