» Articles » PMID: 38359050

Sagittal Plane Knee Kinematics Can Be Measured During Activities of Daily Living Following Total Knee Arthroplasty with Two IMU

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2024 Feb 15
PMID 38359050
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Knee function is rarely measured objectively during functional tasks following total knee arthroplasty. Inertial measurement units (IMU) can measure knee kinematics and range of motion (ROM) during dynamic activities and offer an easy-to-use system for knee function assessment post total knee arthroplasty. However, IMU must be validated against gold standard three-dimensional optical motion capture systems (OMC) across a range of tasks if they are to see widespread uptake. We computed knee rotations and ROM from commercial IMU sensor measurements during walking, squatting, sit-to-stand, stair ascent, and stair descent in 21 patients one-year post total knee arthroplasty using two methods: direct computation using segment orientations (r_IMU), and an IMU-driven iCloud-based interactive lower limb model (m_IMU). This cross-sectional study compared computed knee angles and ROM to a gold-standard OMC and inverse kinematics method using Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) and root-mean-square-differences (RMSD). The r_IMU and m_IMU methods estimated sagittal plane knee angles with excellent correlation (>0.95) compared to OMC for walking, squatting, sit-to-stand, and stair-ascent, and very good correlation (>0.90) for stair descent. For squatting, sit-to-stand, and walking, the mean RMSD for r_IMU and m_IMU compared to OMC were <4 degrees, < 5 degrees, and <6 degrees, respectively but higher for stair ascent and descent (~12 degrees). Frontal and transverse plane knee kinematics estimated using r_IMU and m_IMU showed poor to moderate correlation compared to OMC. There were no differences in ROM measurements during squatting, sit-to-stand, and walking across the two methods. Thus, IMUs can measure sagittal plane knee angles and ROM with high accuracy for a variety of tasks and may be a useful in-clinic tool for objective assessment of knee function following total knee arthroplasty.

References
1.
Oka T, Wada O, Asai T, Maruno H, Mizuno K . Importance of knee flexion range of motion during the acute phase after total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther Res. 2021; 23(2):143-148. PMC: 7814201. DOI: 10.1298/ptr.E9996. View

2.
Yoshida Y, Mizner R, Ramsey D, Snyder-Mackler L . Examining outcomes from total knee arthroplasty and the relationship between quadriceps strength and knee function over time. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007; 23(3):320-8. PMC: 2293974. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.10.008. View

3.
Garling E, Kaptein B, Mertens B, Barendregt W, Veeger H, Nelissen R . Soft-tissue artefact assessment during step-up using fluoroscopy and skin-mounted markers. J Biomech. 2007; 40 Suppl 1:S18-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.03.003. View

4.
Follis S, Chen Z, Mishra S, Howe C, Toosizadeh N, Dohm M . Comparison of wearable sensor to traditional methods in functional outcome measures: A systematic review. J Orthop Res. 2020; 39(10):2093-2102. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24950. View

5.
Eckhard L, Munir S, Wood D, Talbot S, Brighton R, Walter B . The ceiling effects of patient reported outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020; 107(3):102758. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102758. View