IntroductionTibial stress fractures are a common overuse injury resulting from the accumulation of bone microdamage due to repeated loading. Researchers and wearable device developers have sought to understand or predict stress fracture risks, and other injury risks, by monitoring the ground reaction force (GRF, the force between the foot and ground), or GRF correlates (e.g., tibial shock) captured via wearable sensors. Increases in GRF metrics are typically assumed to reflect increases in loading on internal biological structures (e.g., bones). The purpose of this study was to evaluate this assumption for running by testing if increases in GRF metrics were strongly correlated with increases in tibial compression force over a range of speeds and slopes.MethodsTen healthy individuals performed running trials while we collected GRFs and kinematics. We assessed if commonly-used vertical GRF metrics (impact peak, loading rate, active peak, impulse) were strongly correlated with tibial load metrics (peak force, impulse).ResultsOn average, increases in GRF metrics were not strongly correlated with increases in tibial load metrics. For instance, correlating GRF impact peak and loading rate with peak tibial load resulted in r = -0.29±0.37 and r = -0.20±0.35 (inter-subject mean and standard deviation), respectively. We observed high inter-subject variability in correlations, though most coefficients were negligible, weak or moderate. Seventy-six of the 80 subject-specific correlation coefficients computed indicated that higher GRF metrics were not strongly correlated with higher tibial forces.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that commonly-used GRF metrics can mislead our understanding of loading on internal structures, such as the tibia. Increases in GRF metrics should not be assumed to be an indicator of increases in tibial bone load or overuse injury risk during running. This has important implications for sports, wearable devices, and research on running-related injuries, affecting >50 scientific publications per year from 2015–2017.

(1) Background: Low back disorders are a leading cause of missed work and physical disability in manual material handling due to repetitive lumbar loading and overexertion. Ergonomic assessments are often performed to understand and mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal overexertion injuries. Wearable sensor solutions for monitoring low back loading have the potential to improve the quality, quantity, and efficiency of ergonomic assessments and to expand opportunities for the personalized, continuous monitoring of overexertion injury risk. However, existing wearable solutions using a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) are limited in how accurately they can estimate back loading when objects of varying mass are handled, and alternative solutions in the scientific literature require so many distributed sensors that they are impractical for widespread workplace implementation. We therefore explored new ways to accurately monitor low back loading using a small number of wearable sensors. (2) Methods: We synchronously collected data from laboratory instrumentation and wearable sensors to analyze 10 individuals each performing about 400 different material handling tasks. We explored dozens of candidate solutions that used IMUs on various body locations and/or pressure insoles. (3) Results: We found that the two key sensors for accurately monitoring low back loading are a trunk IMU and pressure insoles. Using signals from these two sensors together with a Gradient Boosted Decision Tree algorithm has the potential to provide a practical (relatively few sensors), accurate (up to r2 = 0.89), and automated way (using wearables) to monitor time series lumbar moments across a broad range of material handling tasks. The trunk IMU could be replaced by thigh IMUs, or a pelvis IMU, without sacrificing much accuracy, but there was no practical substitute for the pressure insoles. The key to realizing accurate lumbar load estimates with this approach in the real world will be optimizing force estimates from pressure insoles. (4) Conclusions: Here, we present a promising wearable solution for the practical, automated, and accurate monitoring of low back loading during manual material handling.

There are tremendous opportunities to advance science, clinical care, sports performance, and societal health if we are able to develop tools for monitoring musculoskeletal loading (e.g., forces on bones or muscles) outside the lab. While wearable sensors enable non-invasive monitoring of human movement in applied situations, current commercial wearables do not estimate tissue-level loading on structures inside the body. Here we explore the feasibility of using wearable sensors to estimate tibial bone force during running. First, we used lab-based data and musculoskeletal modeling to estimate tibial force for ten participants running across a range of speeds and slopes. Next, we converted lab-based data to signals feasibly measured with wearables (inertial measurement units on the foot and shank, and pressure-sensing insoles) and used these data to develop two multi-sensor algorithms for estimating peak tibial force: one physics-based and one machine learning. Additionally, to reflect current running wearables that utilize running impact metrics to infer musculoskeletal loading or injury risk, we estimated tibial force using a commonly measured impact metric, the ground reaction force vertical average loading rate (VALR). Using VALR to estimate peak tibial force resulted in a mean absolute percent error of 9.9%, which was no more accurate than a theoretical step counter that assumed the same peak force for every 2 running stride. Our physics-based algorithm reduced error to 5.2%, and our machine learning algorithm reduced error to 2.6%. Further, to gain insights into how force estimation accuracy relates to overuse injury risk, we computed bone damage expected due to a given loading cycle. We found that modest errors in tibial force translated into large errors in bone damage estimates. For example, a 9.9% error in tibial force using VALR translated into 104% error in estimated bone damage. Encouragingly, the physics-based and machine learning algorithms reduced damage errors to 41% and 18%, respectively. This study highlights the exciting potential to combine wearables, musculoskeletal biomechanics and machine learning to develop more accurate tools for monitoring musculoskeletal loading in applied situations.

BACKGROUND: The recently developed magnetic resonance imaging–guided laser-induced thermal therapy offers a minimally invasive alternative to craniotomies performed for tumor resection or for amygdalohippocampectomy to control seizure disorders. Current laser-induced thermal therapies rely on linear stereotactic trajectories that mandate twist-drill entry into the skull and potentially long approaches traversing healthy brain. The use of robotically driven, telescoping, curved needles has the potential to reduce procedure invasiveness by tailoring trajectories to the curved shape of the ablated structure and by enabling access through natural orifices. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of using a concentric tube robot to access the hippocampus through the foramen ovale to deliver thermal therapy and thereby provide a percutaneous treatment for epilepsy without drilling the skull. METHODS: The skull and both hippocampi were segmented from dual computed tomography/magnetic resonance image volumes for 10 patients. For each of the 20 hippocampi, a concentric tube robot was designed and optimized to traverse a trajectory from the foramen ovale to and through the hippocampus from head to tail. RESULTS: Across all 20 cases, the mean distances (errors) between the hippocampus medial axis and backbone of the needle were 0.55, 1.11, and 1.66 mm for the best, mean, and worst case, respectively. CONCLUSION: These curvilinear trajectories would provide accurate transforamenal delivery of an ablation probe to typical hippocampus volumes. This strategy has the potential both to decrease the invasiveness of the procedure and to increase the completeness of hippocampal ablation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract