实现个性化矫形护理:智能膝关节护套的验证

Q1 Computer Science Digital Biomarkers Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1159/000538487
Annah McPherson, Andrew J. McDaid, Sarah Ward
{"title":"实现个性化矫形护理:智能膝关节护套的验证","authors":"Annah McPherson, Andrew J. McDaid, Sarah Ward","doi":"10.1159/000538487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Wearable technology offers a promising solution to advance current rehabilitation strategies for post-operative orthopedic care. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement and concurrent validity of a smart knee brace compared to the gold standard measurement system GAITRite® for assessing lower limb gait parameters. Methods Thirty-four healthy participants were fitted with the smart knee brace (Digital Knee®) on their dominant limb. Gait parameters (stride length, stride time, and gait velocity) were measured simultaneously using the Digital Knee® and the GAITRite® electronic walkway. Two walks were performed at a comfortable speed and two at a fast-walking speed. Results At a comfortable walking speed, stride time was moderately valid (ICC2,1 = 0.66 s), and stride length and gait velocity demonstrated poor validity (ICC2,1 = 0.29; ICC2,1 = 0.41). All gait parameters demonstrated poor validity at a fast-walking speed (ICC2,1 = −0.16 to −0.01). Bias ranged from −0.08 to 0.28, with more clinically acceptable percentage errors at a comfortable walking speed (14.1–30%) versus at a fast-walking speed (26.4–42.6%). Gait velocity and stride length had substantially higher biases in the fast-walking speed compared to the comfortable walking speed (0.28 ± 0.39 m s−1 vs. 0.02 ± 0.21 m s−1; 0.15 ± 0.23 m vs. −0.04 ± 0.17 m). Limits of agreement were considered narrower for stride time compared to stride length and gait velocity. Conclusion The Digital Knee® is a promising approach to improving post-operative rehabilitation outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis. The Digital Knee® demonstrated good agreement and moderate concurrent validity for measuring gait metrics at a comfortable walking speed. These findings highlight the opportunity of the wearable sensor as an intervention for post-operative orthopedic care. This was a laboratory-based study; thus, further research is required to validate the wearable sensor in real-world contexts and in patients with knee pathologies. Further, refinement of the algorithm for measuring gait metrics at slow- and fast-walking speed with the Digital Knee® is warranted.","PeriodicalId":11242,"journal":{"name":"Digital Biomarkers","volume":"26 5","pages":"75 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward Personalized Orthopedic Care: Validation of a Smart Knee Brace\",\"authors\":\"Annah McPherson, Andrew J. McDaid, Sarah Ward\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000538487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Introduction Wearable technology offers a promising solution to advance current rehabilitation strategies for post-operative orthopedic care. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement and concurrent validity of a smart knee brace compared to the gold standard measurement system GAITRite® for assessing lower limb gait parameters. Methods Thirty-four healthy participants were fitted with the smart knee brace (Digital Knee®) on their dominant limb. Gait parameters (stride length, stride time, and gait velocity) were measured simultaneously using the Digital Knee® and the GAITRite® electronic walkway. Two walks were performed at a comfortable speed and two at a fast-walking speed. Results At a comfortable walking speed, stride time was moderately valid (ICC2,1 = 0.66 s), and stride length and gait velocity demonstrated poor validity (ICC2,1 = 0.29; ICC2,1 = 0.41). All gait parameters demonstrated poor validity at a fast-walking speed (ICC2,1 = −0.16 to −0.01). Bias ranged from −0.08 to 0.28, with more clinically acceptable percentage errors at a comfortable walking speed (14.1–30%) versus at a fast-walking speed (26.4–42.6%). Gait velocity and stride length had substantially higher biases in the fast-walking speed compared to the comfortable walking speed (0.28 ± 0.39 m s−1 vs. 0.02 ± 0.21 m s−1; 0.15 ± 0.23 m vs. −0.04 ± 0.17 m). Limits of agreement were considered narrower for stride time compared to stride length and gait velocity. Conclusion The Digital Knee® is a promising approach to improving post-operative rehabilitation outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis. The Digital Knee® demonstrated good agreement and moderate concurrent validity for measuring gait metrics at a comfortable walking speed. These findings highlight the opportunity of the wearable sensor as an intervention for post-operative orthopedic care. This was a laboratory-based study; thus, further research is required to validate the wearable sensor in real-world contexts and in patients with knee pathologies. Further, refinement of the algorithm for measuring gait metrics at slow- and fast-walking speed with the Digital Knee® is warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digital Biomarkers\",\"volume\":\"26 5\",\"pages\":\"75 - 82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digital Biomarkers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Computer Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Biomarkers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Computer Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 引言 可穿戴技术为推进当前骨科术后护理的康复策略提供了一种前景广阔的解决方案。本研究旨在确定智能膝关节护套与黄金标准测量系统 GAITRite® 在评估下肢步态参数方面的一致性和并发有效性。方法 为 34 名健康参与者的优势肢体安装智能膝关节护套(Digital Knee®)。使用 Digital Knee® 和 GAITRite® 电子步道同时测量步态参数(步长、步幅和步速)。两次以舒适速度行走,两次以快速行走。结果 在舒适步行速度下,步幅时间的有效性为中等(ICC2,1 = 0.66 秒),步幅长度和步速的有效性较差(ICC2,1 = 0.29;ICC2,1 = 0.41)。在快速行走时,所有步态参数的有效性都很差(ICC2,1 = -0.16 至 -0.01)。偏差范围为-0.08至0.28,舒适行走速度(14.1%-30%)与快速行走速度(26.4%-42.6%)相比,临床上可接受的误差百分比更高。与舒适行走速度相比,快速行走速度下步速和步幅的偏差要大得多(0.28 ± 0.39 m s-1 vs. 0.02 ± 0.21 m s-1;0.15 ± 0.23 m vs. -0.04 ± 0.17 m)。与步长和步速相比,步幅时间的一致性范围较窄。结论 数字膝关节 (Digital Knee®) 是改善骨关节炎患者术后康复效果的有效方法。在以舒适的步行速度测量步态指标时,数字膝关节®表现出良好的一致性和适度的并发有效性。这些发现凸显了可穿戴传感器作为骨科术后护理干预措施的机遇。这只是一项基于实验室的研究,因此还需要进一步的研究来验证可穿戴传感器在实际环境和膝关节病患者中的有效性。此外,还需要对数字膝关节®在慢速和快速行走时测量步态指标的算法进行改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toward Personalized Orthopedic Care: Validation of a Smart Knee Brace
Abstract Introduction Wearable technology offers a promising solution to advance current rehabilitation strategies for post-operative orthopedic care. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement and concurrent validity of a smart knee brace compared to the gold standard measurement system GAITRite® for assessing lower limb gait parameters. Methods Thirty-four healthy participants were fitted with the smart knee brace (Digital Knee®) on their dominant limb. Gait parameters (stride length, stride time, and gait velocity) were measured simultaneously using the Digital Knee® and the GAITRite® electronic walkway. Two walks were performed at a comfortable speed and two at a fast-walking speed. Results At a comfortable walking speed, stride time was moderately valid (ICC2,1 = 0.66 s), and stride length and gait velocity demonstrated poor validity (ICC2,1 = 0.29; ICC2,1 = 0.41). All gait parameters demonstrated poor validity at a fast-walking speed (ICC2,1 = −0.16 to −0.01). Bias ranged from −0.08 to 0.28, with more clinically acceptable percentage errors at a comfortable walking speed (14.1–30%) versus at a fast-walking speed (26.4–42.6%). Gait velocity and stride length had substantially higher biases in the fast-walking speed compared to the comfortable walking speed (0.28 ± 0.39 m s−1 vs. 0.02 ± 0.21 m s−1; 0.15 ± 0.23 m vs. −0.04 ± 0.17 m). Limits of agreement were considered narrower for stride time compared to stride length and gait velocity. Conclusion The Digital Knee® is a promising approach to improving post-operative rehabilitation outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis. The Digital Knee® demonstrated good agreement and moderate concurrent validity for measuring gait metrics at a comfortable walking speed. These findings highlight the opportunity of the wearable sensor as an intervention for post-operative orthopedic care. This was a laboratory-based study; thus, further research is required to validate the wearable sensor in real-world contexts and in patients with knee pathologies. Further, refinement of the algorithm for measuring gait metrics at slow- and fast-walking speed with the Digital Knee® is warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Digital Biomarkers
Digital Biomarkers Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
23 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Imperative of Voice Data Collection in Clinical Trials. eHealth and mHealth in Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. Detecting Longitudinal Trends between Passively Collected Phone Use and Anxiety among College Students. Video Assessment to Detect Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Digital Vocal Biomarker of Smoking Status Using Ecological Audio Recordings: Results from the Colive Voice Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1