Comparison of IMU-Based Knee Kinematics with and Without Harness Fixation Against an Optical Marker-Based System

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2024 Oct 25

PMID 39451352

Authors

Jana G Weber

Ariana Ortigas-Vasquez

Adrian Sauer

Ingrid Dupraz

Michael Utz

Allan Maas

Thomas M Grupp

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) as an alternative to optical marker-based systems has the potential to make gait analysis part of the clinical standard of care. Previously, an IMU-based system leveraging Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoothing to estimate knee angles was assessed using a six-degrees-of-freedom joint simulator. In a clinical setting, however, accurately measuring abduction/adduction and external/internal rotation of the knee joint is particularly challenging, especially in the presence of soft tissue artefacts. In this study, the in vivo IMU-based joint angles of 40 asymptomatic knees were assessed during level walking, under two distinct sensor placement configurations: (1) IMUs fixed to a rigid harness, and (2) IMUs mounted on the skin using elastic hook-and-loop bands (from here on referred to as "skin-mounted IMUs"). Estimates were compared against values obtained from a harness-mounted optical marker-based system. The comparison of these three sets of kinematic signals (IMUs on harness, IMUs on skin, and optical markers on harness) was performed before and after implementation of a REference FRame Alignment MEthod (REFRAME) to account for the effects of differences in coordinate system orientations. Prior to the implementation of REFRAME, in comparison to optical estimates, skin-mounted IMU-based angles displayed mean root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) up to 6.5°, while mean RMSEs for angles based on harness-mounted IMUs peaked at 5.1°. After REFRAME implementation, peak mean RMSEs were reduced to 4.1°, and 1.5°, respectively. The negligible differences between harness-mounted IMUs and the optical system after REFRAME revealed that the IMU-based system was capable of capturing the same underlying motion pattern as the optical reference. In contrast, obvious differences between the skin-mounted IMUs and the optical reference indicated that the use of a harness led to fundamentally different joint motion being measured, even after accounting for reference frame misalignments. Fluctuations in the kinematic signals associated with harness use suggested the rigid device oscillated upon heel strike, likely due to inertial effects from its additional mass. Our study proposes that optical systems can be successfully replaced by more cost-effective IMUs with similar accuracy, but further investigation (especially in vivo and upon heel strike) against moving videofluoroscopy is recommended.

References

Ortigas Vasquez A, Maas A, List R, Schutz P, Taylor W, Grupp T . A Framework for Analytical Validation of Inertial-Sensor-Based Knee Kinematics Using a Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Joint Simulator. Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23(1). PMC: 9824828. DOI: 10.3390/s23010348. View

Seel T, Raisch J, Schauer T . IMU-based joint angle measurement for gait analysis. Sensors (Basel). 2014; 14(4):6891-909. PMC: 4029684. DOI: 10.3390/s140406891. View

Northon S, Boivin K, Laurencelle L, Hagemeister N, De Guise J . Quantification of joint alignment and stability during a single leg stance task in a knee osteoarthritis cohort. Knee. 2018; 25(6):1040-1050. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.08.011. View

Yang S, Li Q . Inertial sensor-based methods in walking speed estimation: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2012; 12(5):6102-16. PMC: 3386731. DOI: 10.3390/s120506102. View

Benoit D, Ramsey D, Lamontagne M, Xu L, Wretenberg P, Renstrom P . Effect of skin movement artifact on knee kinematics during gait and cutting motions measured in vivo. Gait Posture. 2005; 24(2):152-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.04.012. View

Walker P, Heller Y, Yildirim G, Immerman I . Reference axes for comparing the motion of knee replacements with the anatomic knee. Knee. 2010; 18(5):312-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.005. View

Taylor W, Ehrig R, Duda G, Schell H, Seebeck P, Heller M . On the influence of soft tissue coverage in the determination of bone kinematics using skin markers. J Orthop Res. 2005; 23(4):726-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.orthres.2005.02.006. View

Lu Z, Sun D, Xu D, Li X, Baker J, Gu Y . Gait Characteristics and Fatigue Profiles When Standing on Surfaces with Different Hardness: Gait Analysis and Machine Learning Algorithms. Biology (Basel). 2021; 10(11). PMC: 8615158. DOI: 10.3390/biology10111083. View

Zeighami A, Dumas R, Aissaoui R . Knee loading in OA subjects is correlated to flexion and adduction moments and to contact point locations. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):8594. PMC: 8060429. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-87978-2. View

10.

Versteyhe M, De Vroey H, Debrouwere F, Hallez H, Claeys K . A Novel Method to Estimate the Full Knee Joint Kinematics Using Low Cost IMU Sensors for Easy to Implement Low Cost Diagnostics. Sensors (Basel). 2020; 20(6). PMC: 7147475. DOI: 10.3390/s20061683. View

11.

Simon S . Quantification of human motion: gait analysis-benefits and limitations to its application to clinical problems. J Biomech. 2004; 37(12):1869-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.047. View

12.

Grood E, Suntay W . A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng. 1983; 105(2):136-44. DOI: 10.1115/1.3138397. View

13.

Gasparutto X, Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Attias M, Dumas R, Armand S, Miozzari H . Comparison between passive knee kinematics during surgery and active knee kinematics during walking: A preliminary study. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0282517. PMC: 9987822. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282517. View

14.

Most E, Axe J, Rubash H, Li G . Sensitivity of the knee joint kinematics calculation to selection of flexion axes. J Biomech. 2004; 37(11):1743-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.025. View

15.

MacWilliams B, Davis R . Addressing some misperceptions of the joint coordinate system. J Biomech Eng. 2013; 135(5):54506. DOI: 10.1115/1.4024142. View

16.

Ortigas Vasquez A, Taylor W, Maas A, Woiczinski M, Grupp T, Sauer A . A frame orientation optimisation method for consistent interpretation of kinematic signals. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):9632. PMC: 10267167. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36625-z. View

17.

Cagnin A, Choiniere M, Bureau N, Durand M, Mezghani N, Gaudreault N . A multi-arm cluster randomized clinical trial of the use of knee kinesiography in the management of osteoarthritis patients in a primary care setting. Postgrad Med. 2019; 132(1):91-101. DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2019.1665457. View

18.

Zeighami A, Aissaoui R, Dumas R . Knee medial and lateral contact forces in a musculoskeletal model with subject-specific contact point trajectories. J Biomech. 2018; 69:138-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.01.021. View

19.

Bytyqi D, Shabani B, Lustig S, Cheze L, Karahoda Gjurgjeala N, Neyret P . Gait knee kinematic alterations in medial osteoarthritis: three dimensional assessment. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(6):1191-8. PMC: 4037512. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2312-3. View

20.

Benson L, RAisAnen A, Clermont C, Ferber R . Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis. Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(5). PMC: 8915128. DOI: 10.3390/s22051722. View