» Articles » PMID: 30154731

Inertial Sensor-Based Gait and Attractor Analysis As Clinical Measurement Tool: Functionality and Sensitivity in Healthy Subjects and Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview
Journal Front Physiol
Date 2018 Aug 30
PMID 30154731
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To determine if the attractor for acceleration gait data is similar among healthy persons defining a reference attractor; if exercise-induced changes in the attractor in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (sLSS) are greater than in healthy persons; and if the exercise-induced changes in the attractor are affected by surgical treatment. Twenty-four healthy subjects and 19 patients with sLSS completed a 6-min walk test (6MWT) on a 30-m walkway. Gait data were collected using inertial sensors (RehaGait) capturing 3-dimensional foot accelerations. Attractor analysis was used to quantify changes in low-pass filtered acceleration pattern (δM) and variability (δD) and their combination as attractor-based index (δF = δM δD) between the first and last 30 m of walking. These parameters were compared within healthy persons and patients with sLSS (preoperatively and 10 weeks and 12 months postoperatively) and between healthy persons and patients with sLSS. The variability in the attractor pattern among healthy persons was assessed as the standard deviation of the individual attractors. The attractor pattern differed greatly among healthy persons. The variability in the attractor between subjects was about three times higher than the variability around the attractor within subject. The change in gait pattern and variability during the 6MWT did not differ significantly in patients with sLSS between baseline and follow-up but differed significantly compared to healthy persons. The attractor for acceleration data varied largely among healthy subjects, and hence a reference attractor could not be generated. Moreover, the change in the attractor and its variability during the 6MWT differed between patients and elderly healthy persons but not between repeated assessments. Hence, the attractor based on low-pass filtered signals as used in this study may reflect pathology specific differences in gait characteristics but does not appear to be sufficiently sensitive to serve as outcome parameter of decompression surgery in patients with sLSS.

Citing Articles

Predicting executive functioning from walking features in Parkinson's disease using machine learning.

Piet A, Geritz J, Garcia P, Irsfeld M, Li F, Huang X Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):29522.

PMID: 39604483 PMC: 11603322. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80144-4.


Gait analysis using digital biomarkers including smart shoes in lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a scoping review.

Morimoto T, Hirata H, Kobayashi T, Tsukamoto M, Yoshihara T, Toda Y Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 10:1302136.

PMID: 38162877 PMC: 10757616. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1302136.


Cognitive parameters can predict change of walking performance in advanced Parkinson's disease - Chances and limits of early rehabilitation.

Geritz J, Welzel J, Hansen C, Maetzler C, Hobert M, Elshehabi M Front Aging Neurosci. 2023; 14:1070093.

PMID: 36620765 PMC: 9813446. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.1070093.


Discovering the sluggishness of triathlon running - using the attractor method to quantify the impact of the bike-run transition.

Weich C, Barth V, Killer N, Vleck V, Erich J, Treiber T Front Sports Act Living. 2023; 4:1065741.

PMID: 36589784 PMC: 9802668. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2022.1065741.


Does Executive Function Influence Walking in Acutely Hospitalized Patients With Advanced Parkinson's Disease: A Quantitative Analysis.

Geritz J, Welzel J, Hansen C, Maetzler C, Hobert M, Elshehabi M Front Neurol. 2022; 13:852725.

PMID: 35928127 PMC: 9344922. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.852725.


References
1.
Iosa M, Morone G, Fusco A, Pratesi L, Bragoni M, Coiro P . Effects of walking endurance reduction on gait stability in patients with stroke. Stroke Res Treat. 2011; 2012:810415. PMC: 3182339. DOI: 10.1155/2012/810415. View

2.
McGirt M, Sivaganesan A, Asher A, Devin C . Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg Focus. 2015; 39(6):E13. DOI: 10.3171/2015.8.FOCUS15338. View

3.
Toosizadeh N, Yen T, Howe C, Dohm M, Mohler J, Najafi B . Gait behaviors as an objective surgical outcome in low back disorders: A systematic review. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2015; 30(6):528-36. PMC: 4714541. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.04.005. View

4.
Suda Y, Saitou M, Shibasaki K, Yamazaki N, Chiba K, Toyama Y . Gait analysis of patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(22):2509-13. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00016. View

5.
. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002; 166(1):111-7. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102. View