BACKGROUND: Home-exercise is commonly prescribed for rehabilitation of the shoulder following injury. There is a lack of technology available to monitor if the patient performs the exercises as prescribed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of using three dimensional (3D) gyroscope data recorded with the Bandcizer™ sensor to differentiate between three elastic band exercises performed in the shoulder joint: abduction, flexion, and external rotation. DESIGN: Concurrent validity study. METHODS: This study was performed over two phases. In the first phase, 20 subjects performed three sets of 10 of shoulder abduction, external rotation and flexion exercises with a Thera-Band mounted with a Bandcizer, while supervised by a physical therapist. The Bandcizer has an inbuilt three-dimensional gyroscope, capable of measuring angular rotation. Gyroscope data were analyzed in Matlab, and a one-way ANOVA was used to test for significant differences between each of the three exercises. An algorithm was then created in Matlab based on the exercise-data from the gyroscope, to enable differentiation between the three shoulder exercises. Twenty new subjects were then recruited to cross-validate the algorithm and investigate if the algorithm could differentiate between the three different shoulder exercises. RESULTS: A blinded assessor using the Matlab algorithm could correctly identify 56 out of 60 exercise sets. The kappa agreement for the three exercises ranged between 0.86-0.91. CONCLUSION: The ability to differentiate between the home exercises performed by patients after shoulder injury has great implications for future clinical practice and research. When home exercises are the treatments-of-choice, clinicians will be able to quantify if the patient performed the exercise as intended. Further research should be aimed at investigating the feasibility of using the Bandcizer™ in a home-based environment. WORD COUNT: 2429. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
BACKGROUND: Home-exercise is commonly prescribed for rehabilitation of the shoulder following injury. There is a lack of technology available to monitor if the patient performs the exercises as prescribed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of using three dimensional (3D) gyroscope data recorded with the Bandcizer™ sensor to differentiate between three elastic band exercises performed in the shoulder joint: abduction, flexion, and external rotation. DESIGN: Concurrent validity study. METHODS: This study was performed over two phases. In the first phase, 20 subjects performed three sets of 10 of shoulder abduction, external rotation and flexion exercises with a Thera-Band mounted with a Bandcizer, while supervised by a physical therapist. The Bandcizer has an inbuilt three-dimensional gyroscope, capable of measuring angular rotation. Gyroscope data were analyzed in Matlab, and a one-way ANOVA was used to test for significant differences between each of the three exercises. An algorithm was then created in Matlab based on the exercise-data from the gyroscope, to enable differentiation between the three shoulder exercises. Twenty new subjects were then recruited to cross-validate the algorithm and investigate if the algorithm could differentiate between the three different shoulder exercises. RESULTS: A blinded assessor using the Matlab algorithm could correctly identify 56 out of 60 exercise sets. The kappa agreement for the three exercises ranged between 0.86-0.91. CONCLUSION: The ability to differentiate between the home exercises performed by patients after shoulder injury has great implications for future clinical practice and research. When home exercises are the treatments-of-choice, clinicians will be able to quantify if the patient performed the exercise as intended. Further research should be aimed at investigating the feasibility of using the Bandcizer™ in a home-based environment. WORD COUNT: 2429. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: Robert C Wagenaar; Inbal Sapir; Yuting Zhang; Stacey Markovic; Lucia M Vaina; Thomas D C Little Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2011
Authors: Michael S Rathleff; Kristian Thorborg; Line A Rode; Kate A McGirr; Anders S Sørensen; Anders Bøgild; Thomas Bandholm Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Lars L Andersen; Charlotte A Saervoll; Ole S Mortensen; Otto M Poulsen; Harald Hannerz; Mette K Zebis Journal: Pain Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Paula R Camargo; Melina N Haik; Paula M Ludewig; Raul B Filho; Stela M G Mattiello-Rosa; Tania F Salvini Journal: Physiother Theory Pract Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mirja Vuorenmaa; Jari Ylinen; Kirsi Piitulainen; Petri Salo; Hannu Kautiainen; Maija Pesola; Arja Häkkinen Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Henrik Riel; Mark Matthews; Bill Vicenzino; Thomas Bandholm; Kristian Thorborg; Michael Skovdal Rathleff Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.362