Nuphar Lendner1, Erik Wells1, Idit Lavi2, Yan Yan Kwok3, Pak-Cheong Ho3, Ronit Wollstein1,4. 1. 1 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 2. 2 Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 3. 3 The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. 4. 4 University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of wrist range of motion (ROM) is important to all aspects of treatment and rehabilitation of upper extremity conditions. Recently, gyroscopes have been used to measure ROM and may be more precise than manual evaluations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of the iPhone gyroscope application and compare it with use of a goniometer, specifically evaluating its accuracy and ease of use. METHODS: A cross-sectional study evaluated adult Caucasian participants, with no evidence of wrist pathology. Wrist ROM measurements in 306 wrists using the 2 methods were compared. Demographic information was collected including age, sex, and occupation. Analysis included mixed models and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Wrist motion was similar between the 2 methods. Technical difficulties were encountered with gyroscope use. Age was an independent predictor of ROM. CONCLUSIONS: Correct measurement of ROM is critical to guide, compare, and evaluate treatment and rehabilitation of the upper extremity. Inaccurate measurements could mislead the surgeon and harm patient adherence with therapy or surgeon instruction. An application used by the patient could improve adherence but needs to be reliable and easy to use. Evaluation is necessary before utilization of such an application. This study supports revision of the application on the iPhone to improve ease of use.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of wrist range of motion (ROM) is important to all aspects of treatment and rehabilitation of upper extremity conditions. Recently, gyroscopes have been used to measure ROM and may be more precise than manual evaluations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of the iPhone gyroscope application and compare it with use of a goniometer, specifically evaluating its accuracy and ease of use. METHODS: A cross-sectional study evaluated adult Caucasian participants, with no evidence of wrist pathology. Wrist ROM measurements in 306 wrists using the 2 methods were compared. Demographic information was collected including age, sex, and occupation. Analysis included mixed models and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Wrist motion was similar between the 2 methods. Technical difficulties were encountered with gyroscope use. Age was an independent predictor of ROM. CONCLUSIONS: Correct measurement of ROM is critical to guide, compare, and evaluate treatment and rehabilitation of the upper extremity. Inaccurate measurements could mislead the surgeon and harm patient adherence with therapy or surgeon instruction. An application used by the patient could improve adherence but needs to be reliable and easy to use. Evaluation is necessary before utilization of such an application. This study supports revision of the application on the iPhone to improve ease of use.
Authors: Franco Franchignoni; Andrea Giordano; Francesco Sartorio; Stefano Vercelli; Barbara Pascariello; Giorgio Ferriero Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Matthias Klum; Maya B Wolf; Peter Hahn; Franck M Leclère; Thomas Bruckner; Frank Unglaub Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Wanmin Wu; Sanjoy Dasgupta; Ernesto E Ramirez; Carlyn Peterson; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Justin W L Keogh; Alistair Cox; Sarah Anderson; Bernard Liew; Alicia Olsen; Ben Schram; James Furness Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240