An inertial measurement unit (IMU) allows kinematic evaluation of human motion with fewer operational constraints than a gold standard optoelectronic motion capture (MOCAP) system. The study's aim was to compare IMU and MOCAP measurements of dynamic pelvic orientation angles during different activities of daily life (ADL): gait, sit-to-stand (STS) transfers and block step-up (BS) transfers. A single IMU was attached onto the lower back in seventeen healthy participants (8F/9 M, age 19-31 years; BMI < 25) and optical skin markers were attached onto anatomical pelvic landmarks for MOCAP measurements. Comparisons between IMU and MOCAP by Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that measurements were between 2SD of the absolute difference and Pearson's correlation coefficients were between 0.85 and 0.94. Frontal plane pelvic angle estimations achieved a RMSE in the range of [2.7°-4.5°] and sagittal plane measurements achieved a RMSE in the range of [2.7°-8.9°] which were both lowest in gait. Waveform peak detection times demonstrated ICCs between 0.96 and 1.00. These results are in accordance to other studies comparing IMU and MOCAP measurements with different applications and suggest that an IMU is a valid tool to measure dynamic pelvic angles during various activities of daily life which could be applied to monitor rehabilitation in a wide variety of musculoskeletal disorders.

No abstract

Patients undergoing total knee replacement for end stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) become increasingly younger and more demanding. Consequently, outcome assessment tools need to evolve toward objective performance-based measures. We applied a novel approach toward ambulatory biomechanical assessment of physical function using a single inertial sensor located at the pelvis to derive various motion parameters during activities of daily living. We investigated the potential of a clinically feasible battery of tests to define relevant parameters of physical function. We compared preoperative measures of end stage knee OA patients to healthy subjects. Our results show that measures of time yield the highest discriminative capacity to differentiate between groups. Additionally we found disease-dependent and task-specific alterations of movement for inertial sensor-derived motion parameters with good discriminative capacity. The inertial sensor's output quantities seem to capture another clinically relevant dimension of physical function that is supplementary to time. This study demonstrates the potential of inertial sensor-based motion analysis and provides a standardized test feasible for a routine clinical application in the longitudinal follow-up.

Background: It is important to assess physical activity objectively during daily life circumstances, to understand the association between physical activity and diseases and to determine the effectiveness of interventions. Accelerometer-based physical activity monitoring seems a promising method and could potentially capture all four FITT (i.e. Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type) components of physical activity considered by the World Health Organization (WHO).Aim: To assess the four FITT components of physical activity with an accelerometer during daily life circumstances and compare with self-reported levels of physical activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and a healthy control group.Methods: Patients (n=30) with end-stage knee OA and age-matched healthy subjects (n=30) were measured. An ambulant tri-axial accelerometer was placed onto the lateral side of the upper leg. Physical activity was measured during four consecutive days. Using algorithm-based peak detection methods in Matlab, parameters covering the four FITT components were assessed. Self-reported physical activity was assessed using the Short questionnaire to assess health enhancing physical activity (SQUASH).Results: Knee OA patients demonstrated fewer walking bouts (154 ±79 versus 215 ±65 resp.; p=0.002), step counts (4402 ±2960 steps/day versus 6943 ±2581 steps/day; p=0.001) and sit-to-stand (STS) transfers (37 ±14 versus 44 ±12; p=0.031) compared to controls. Knee OA patients demonstrated more time sitting (65 ±15% versus 57 ±10% resp.; p=0.029), less time walking (8 ±4% versus 11 ±4% resp.; p=0.014) and lower walking cadence (87 ±11steps/min versus 99 ± 8steps/min resp.; p<0.001). Accelerometer-based parameters of physical activity were moderately-strong (Pearsons’s r= 0.28-0.49) correlated to self-reported SQUASH scores.Conclusion: A single ambulant accelerometer-based physical activity monitor feasibly captures the four FITT components of physical activity and provides more insight into the actual physical activity behavior and limitations of knee OA patients in their daily life.

In a cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, pre-operative differences in mean WOMAC function scores and gait parameters between low and high function subgroups disappeared by 3 months post-operatively. Gait parameters only improved significantly during the first 3 post-operative months in patients with a low pre-operative function, highlighting the importance of investigating relative changes rather than the absolute changes and the need to consider patients with high and low functions separately.

Wearable sensors, in particular inertial measurement units (IMUs) allow the objective, valid, discriminative and responsive assessment of physical function during functional tests such as gait, stair climbing or sit-to-stand.Applied to various body segments, precise capture of time-to-task achievement, spatiotemporal gait and kinematic parameters of demanding tests or specific to an affected limb are the most used measures.In activity monitoring (AM), accelerometry has mainly been used to derive energy expenditure or general health related parameters such as total step counts.In orthopaedics and the elderly, counting specific events such as stairs or high intensity activities were clinimetrically most powerful; as were qualitative parameters at the ‘micro-level’ of activity such as step frequency or sit-stand duration.Low cost and ease of use allow routine clinical application but with many options for sensors, algorithms, test and parameter definitions, choice and comparability remain difficult, calling for consensus or standardisation.Cite this article: Grimm B, Bolink S. Evaluating physical function and activity in the elderly patient using wearable motion sensors. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:112–120. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160022.

BackgroundJoint replacement is an effective intervention for people with advanced arthritis, although there is an important minority of patients who do not improve post-operatively. There is a need for robust evidence on outcomes after surgery, but there are a number of measures that assess function after joint replacement, many of which lack any clear theoretical basis. The World Health Organisation has introduced the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which divides function into three separate domains: Impairment, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The aim of this study is to compare the properties and responsiveness of a selection of commonly used outcome tools that assess function, examine how well they relate to the ICF concepts, and to explore the changes in the measures over time.Methods/designTwo hundred and sixty three patients listed for lower limb joint replacement at an elective orthopaedic centre have been recruited into this study. Participants attend the hospital for a research appointment prior to surgery and then at 3-months and 1-year after surgery. At each assessment time, function is assessed using a range of measures. Self-report function is assessed using the WOMAC, Aberdeen Impairment, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction Measure, SF-12 and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile 2. Clinician-administered measures of function include the American Knee Society Score for knee patients and the Harris Hip Score for hip patients. Performance tests include the timed 20-metre walk, timed get up and go, sit-to-stand-to-sit, step tests and single stance balance test. During the performance tests, participants wear an inertial sensor and data from motion analysis are collected. Statistical analysis will include exploring the relationship between measures describing the same ICF concepts, assessing responsiveness, and studying changes in measures over time.DiscussionThere are a range of tools that can be used to assess function before and after joint replacement, with little information about how these various measures compare in their properties and responsiveness. This study aims to provide this data on a selection of commonly used assessments of function, and explore how they relate to the ICF domains.

Gait analysis has widely been accepted as an objective measure of function and clinical outcome. Ambulatory accelerometer-based gait analysis has emerged as a clinically more feasible alternative to optical motion capture systems but does not provide kinematic characterization to identify disease dependent mechanisms causing walking disability. This study investigated the potential of a single inertial sensor to derive frontal plane motion of the pelvis (i.e. pelvic obliquity) and help identify hip osteoarthritis (OA) related gait alterations. Patients with advanced unilateral hip OA (n=20) were compared to patients with advanced unilateral knee OA (n=20) and to a healthy control group (n=20). Kinematic characterization of frontal plane pelvic motion during gait demonstrated decreased range of motion and increased asymmetry for hip OA patients specifically.