RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Wearable sensor technology may allow accurate monitoring of spine movement outside a clinical setting. The concurrent validity of wearable sensors during multiplane tasks, such as lifting, is unknown. This study assessed DorsaVi Version 6 sensors for their concurrent validity with the Vicon motion analysis system for measuring lumbar flexion during lifting. METHODS: Twelve participants (nine with, and three without back pain) wore sensors on T12 and S2 spinal levels with Vicon surface markers attached to those sensors. Participants performed 5 symmetrical (lifting from front) and 20 asymmetrical lifts (alternate lifting from left and right). The global-T12-angle, global-S2-angle and the angle between these two sensors (relative-lumbar-angle) were output in the sagittal plane. Agreement between systems was determined through-range and at peak flexion, using multilevel mixed-effects regression models to calculate root mean square errors and standard deviation. Mean differences and limits of agreement for peak flexion were calculated using the Bland Altman method. RESULTS: For through-range measures of symmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 0.86° (0.78) at global-T12-angle, 0.90° (0.84) at global-S2-angle and 1.34° (1.25) at relative-lumbar-angle. For through-range measures of asymmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 1.84° (1.58) at global-T12-angle, 1.90° (1.65) at global-S2-angle and 1.70° (1.54) at relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of symmetrical lifts, was - 0.90° (-6.80 to 5.00) for global-T12-angle, 0.60° (-2.16 to 3.36) for global-S2-angle and - 1.20° (-8.06 to 5.67) for relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of asymmetrical lifts was - 1.59° (-8.66 to 5.48) for global-T12-angle, -0.60° (-7.00 to 5.79) for global-S2-angle and - 0.84° (-8.55 to 6.88) for relative-lumbar-angle. CONCLUSION: The root means squared errors were slightly better for symmetrical lifts than they were for asymmetrical lifts. Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement showed variability across lift types. However, the root mean squared errors for all lifts were better than previous research and below clinically acceptable thresholds. This research supports the use of lumbar flexion measurements from these inertial measurement units in populations with low back pain, where multi-plane lifting movements are assessed.
Asunto(s)
Elevación , Movimiento , Dispositivos Electrónicos Vestibles , Humanos , Vértebras Lumbares , Rango del Movimiento Articular , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A primary etiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is currently unknown, but poor postural control of the spinal extensor musculature has been identified as an AIS risk factor. Identifiable postural differences would aid in advancing the precise postural behaviors that should be modified during Physiotherapy Scoliosis Specific Exercise (PSSE) to help limit the progression of AIS. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there any determinable differences in lumbopelvic posture or range of motion between subjects with AIS and controls? METHODS: This prospective cohort pilot study consisted of 53 subjects (27 AIS and 26 control) aged 11-17 years. Subjects had their lumbopelvic posture assessed and monitored using the ViMove DorsaVi sensor package. All subjects underwent a live assessment to obtain initial lumbopelvic (LP) range of motion (ROM) measurements. Subjects were then monitored while continuing with normal activities of daily living (ADLs) for 12 h. With an alpha level of 0.05, nonparametric analyses were performed for each variable via a Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: During the live assessment, controls exhibited a significantly greater anterior pelvic tilt ROM in the sitting position than the AIS group (p = 0.0433). When compared to female controls, females with AIS had a sitting pelvic tilt ROM that was significantly more retroverted (p = 0.0232) and less anteverted (p = 0.0010). During ADLs, female controls exhibited a higher total number of extension events than their female with AIS (p = 0.0263). These associations did not strengthen with greater spinal deformity. SIGNIFICANCE: This work demonstrates postural differences between patients with AIS and controls. Further study is necessary to determine why patients with AIS adopt these postures, and if PSSEs can be utilized to limit the progression of AIS.
Asunto(s)
Cifosis , Músculos Paraespinales/fisiopatología , Escoliosis/etiología , Actividades Cotidianas , Adolescente , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Cifosis/complicaciones , Cifosis/fisiopatología , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Prospectivos , Rango del Movimiento Articular/fisiología , Escoliosis/fisiopatologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Wireless, wearable, inertial motion sensor technology introduces new possibilities for monitoring spinal motion and pain in people during their daily activities of work, rest and play. There are many types of these wireless devices currently available but the precision in measurement and the magnitude of measurement error from such devices is often unknown. This study investigated the concurrent validity of one inertial motion sensor system (ViMove) for its ability to measure lumbar inclination motion, compared with the Vicon motion capture system. METHODS: To mimic the variability of movement patterns in a clinical population, a sample of 34 people were included - 18 with low back pain and 16 without low back pain. ViMove sensors were attached to each participant's skin at spinal levels T12 and S2, and Vicon surface markers were attached to the ViMove sensors. Three repetitions of end-range flexion inclination, extension inclination and lateral flexion inclination to both sides while standing were measured by both systems concurrently with short rest periods in between. Measurement agreement through the whole movement range was analysed using a multilevel mixed-effects regression model to calculate the root mean squared errors and the limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland Altman method. RESULTS: We calculated root mean squared errors (standard deviation) of 1.82° (±1.00°) in flexion inclination, 0.71° (±0.34°) in extension inclination, 0.77° (±0.24°) in right lateral flexion inclination and 0.98° (±0.69°) in left lateral flexion inclination. 95% limits of agreement ranged between -3.86° and 4.69° in flexion inclination, -2.15° and 1.91° in extension inclination, -2.37° and 2.05° in right lateral flexion inclination and -3.11° and 2.96° in left lateral flexion inclination. CONCLUSIONS: We found a clinically acceptable level of agreement between these two methods for measuring standing lumbar inclination motion in these two cardinal movement planes. Further research should investigate the ViMove system's ability to measure lumbar motion in more complex 3D functional movements and to measure changes of movement patterns related to treatment effects.