RESUMEN
The knee abduction moment (KAM) has been identified as a significant predictor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk; however, the cost and time demands associated with collecting three-dimensional (3D) kinetic data have prompted the need for alternative solutions. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been explored as a potential solution for quantitative on-field assessment of injury risk. Most previous work has focused on angular velocity data, which are highly susceptible to bias and noise relative to acceleration data. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the relationship between KAM and body segment acceleration during sport-specific movements. Three functional tasks were selected to analyze peak KAM using optical motion capture and force plates as well as peak triaxial segment accelerations using IMUs. Moderate correlations with peak KAM were observed for peak shank acceleration during single-leg hop; peak trunk, thigh, and shank accelerations during a deceleration task; and peak trunk, pelvis, and shank accelerations during a 45° cut. These findings provide preliminary support for the use of wearable IMUs to identify peak KAM during athletic tasks.
Asunto(s)
Lesiones del Ligamento Cruzado Anterior , Deportes , Humanos , Proyectos Piloto , Fenómenos Biomecánicos , Articulación de la Rodilla , Extremidad InferiorRESUMEN
Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be utilized as an alternative to optical motion capture as a method of measuring joint angles. These sensors require functional calibration prior to data collection, known as sensor-to-segment calibration. This study aims to evaluate previously described sensor-to-segment calibration methods to measure joint angle range of motion (ROM) during highly dynamic sports-related movements. Seven calibration methods were selected to compare lower extremity ROM measured using IMUs to an optical motion capture system. The accuracy of ROM measurements for each calibration method varied across joints and sport-specific tasks, with absolute mean differences between IMU measurement and motion capture measurement ranging from <0.1° to 24.1°. Fewer significant differences were observed at the pelvis than at the hip, knee, or ankle across all tasks. For each task, one or more calibration movements demonstrated non-significant differences in ROM for at least nine out of the twelve ROM variables. These results suggest that IMUs may be a viable alternative to optical motion capture for sport-specific lower-extremity ROM measurement, although the sensor-to-segment calibration methods used should be selected based on the specific tasks and variables of interest for a given application.