Literature DB >> 30758509

Assessing Shoulder Biomechanics of Healthy Elderly Individuals During Activities of Daily Living Using Inertial Measurement Units: High Maximum Elevation Is Achievable but Rarely Used.

Ryan M Chapman1, Michael T Torchia2, John-Erik Bell2, Douglas W Van Citters3.   

Abstract

Current shoulder clinical range of motion (ROM) assessments (e.g., goniometric ROM) may not adequately represent shoulder function beyond controlled clinical settings. Relative inertial measurement unit (IMU) motion quantifies ROM precisely and can be used outside of clinic settings capturing "real-world" shoulder function. A novel IMU-based shoulder elevation quantification method was developed via IMUs affixed to the sternum/humerus, respectively. This system was then compared to in-laboratory motion capture (MOCAP) during prescribed motions (flexion, abduction, scaption, and internal/external rotation). MOCAP/IMU elevation were equivalent during flexion (R2 = 0.96, μError = 1.7 deg), abduction (R2 = 0.96, μError = 2.9 deg), scaption (R2 = 0.98, μError = -0.3 deg), and internal/external rotation (R2 = 0.90, μError = 0.4 deg). When combined across movements, MOCAP/IMU elevation were equal (R2 = 0.98, μError = 1.4 deg). Following validation, the IMU-based system was deployed prospectively capturing continuous shoulder elevation in 10 healthy individuals (4 M, 69 ± 20 years) without shoulder pathology for seven consecutive days (13.5 ± 2.9 h/day). Elevation was calculated continuously daily and outcome metrics included percent spent in discrete ROM (e.g., 0-5 deg and 5-10 deg), repeated maximum elevation (i.e., >10 occurrences), and maximum/average elevation. Average elevation was 40 ± 6 deg. Maximum with >10 occurrences and maximum were on average 145-150 deg and 169 ± 8 deg, respectively. Subjects spent the vast majority of the day (97%) below 90 deg of elevation, with the most time spent in the 25-30 deg range (9.7%). This study demonstrates that individuals have the ability to achieve large ROMs but do not frequently do so. These results are consistent with the previously established lab-based measures. Moreover, they further inform how healthy individuals utilize their shoulders and may provide clinicians a reference for postsurgical ROM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30758509      PMCID: PMC6434324          DOI: 10.1115/1.4042433

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  36 in total

1.  American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Authors:  Lori A Michener; Philip W McClure; Brian J Sennett
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Range of motion measurements: reference values and a database for comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Soucie; C Wang; A Forsyth; S Funk; M Denny; K E Roach; D Boone
Journal:  Haemophilia       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 4.287

3.  Functional calibration procedure for 3D knee joint angle description using inertial sensors.

Authors:  J Favre; R Aissaoui; B M Jolles; J A de Guise; K Aminian
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2009-08-08       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Shoulder and elbow joint angle tracking with inertial sensors.

Authors:  Mahmoud El-Gohary; James McNames
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Rehabilitation after total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  N D Boardman; R H Cofield; K A Bengtson; R Little; M C Jones; C M Rowland
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects.

Authors:  D C Boone; S P Azen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Camera speeds for normal and pathological gait analyses.

Authors:  D A Winter
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Tom R Norris; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Early and long-term results of arthroscopic treatment for shoulder stiffness.

Authors:  Junji Ide; Katsumasa Takagi
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders.

Authors:  F Sirveaux; L Favard; D Oudet; D Huquet; G Walch; D Molé
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-04
View more
  4 in total

1.  Prediction of Lower Limb Kinetics and Kinematics during Walking by a Single IMU on the Lower Back Using Machine Learning.

Authors:  Hyerim Lim; Bumjoon Kim; Sukyung Park
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  Wearable Device for Yogic Breathing with Real-Time Heart Rate and Posture Monitoring.

Authors:  Anmol Puranik; M Kanthi; Anupama V Nayak
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2021-10-20

3.  Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system: A validation study.

Authors:  Jakob Henschke; Hannes Kaplick; Monique Wochatz; Tilman Engel
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-10

Review 4.  Clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty used for failed prior shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aaron J Bois; Paige Knight; Khalifa Alhojailan; Kamal I Bohsali
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-01-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.