Objective assessment, repeatability, and agreement of shoulder ROM with a 3D gyroscope

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Markus Dietmar Schofer¹  Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann¹  Nina Timmesfeld²  Robert Anetsmann¹  Annett Heidrich¹  Turgay Efe¹  Bilal Farouk El-Zayat¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedics and Rheumatology, University Hospital Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, 35033, Germany;Institute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Philipps University Marburg, Bunsenstraße 3, Marburg, 35037, Germany

关键词: Gyroscope;    Dynaport;    Objective assessment;    Shoulder motion;    Precision;    Repeatability;   

Others  :  1133942
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-72

 received in 2012-04-14, accepted in 2013-02-25,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Assessment of shoulder mobility is essential for diagnosis and clinical follow-up of shoulder diseases. Only a few highly sophisticated instruments for objective measurements of shoulder mobility are available. The recently introduced DynaPort MiniMod TriGyro ShoulderTest-System (DP) was validated earlier in laboratory trials. We aimed to assess the precision (repeatability) and agreement of this instrument in human subjects, as compared to the conventional goniometer.

Methods

The DP is a small, light-weight, three-dimensional gyroscope that can be fixed on the distal upper arm, recording shoulder abduction, flexion, and rotation. Twenty-one subjects (42 shoulders) were included for analysis. Two subsequent assessments of the same subject with a 30-minute delay in testing of each shoulder were performed with the DP in two directions (flexion and abduction), and simultaneously correlated with the measurements of a conventional goniometer. All assessments were performed by one observer. Repeatability for each method was determined and compared as the statistical variance between two repeated measurements. Agreement was illustrated by Bland-Altman-Plots with 95% limits of agreement. Statistical analysis was performed with a linear mixed regression model. Variance for repeated measurements by the same method was also estimated and compared with the likelihood-ratio test.

Results

Evaluation of abduction showed significantly better repeatability for the DP compared to the conventional goniometer (error variance: DP = 0.89, goniometer = 8.58, p = 0.025). No significant differences were found for flexion (DP = 1.52, goniometer = 5.94, p = 0.09). Agreement assessment was performed for flexion for mean differences of 0.27° with 95% limit of agreement ranging from −7.97° to 8.51°. For abduction, the mean differences were 1.19° with a 95% limit of agreement ranging from −9.07° to 11.46°.

Conclusion

In summary, DP demonstrated a high precision even higher than the conventional goniometer. Agreement between both methods is acceptable, with possible deviations of up to greater than 10°. Therefore, static measurements with DP are more precise than conventional goniometer measurements. These results are promising for routine clinical use of the DP.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 El-Zayat et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bernmark E, Wiktorin C: A triaxial accelerometer for measuring arm movements. Appl Ergon 2002, 33(6):541-547.
• [2]Uswatte G, Miltner WH, Foo B, Varma M, Moran S, Taub E: Objective measurement of functional upper-extremity movement using accelerometer recordings transformed with a threshold filter. Stroke 2000, 31(3):662-667.
• [3]Terwee CB, de Winter AF, Scholten RJ, Jans MP, Deville W, van Schaardenburg D, Bouter LM: Interobserver reproducibility of the visual estimation of range of motion of the shoulder. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005, 86(7):1356-1361.
• [4]de Winter AF, Heemskerk MA, Terwee CB, Jans MP, Deville W, van Schaardenburg DJ, Scholten RJ, Bouter LM: Inter-observer reproducibility of measurements of range of motion in patients with shoulder pain using a digital inclinometer. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2004, 5:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Van Hees VT, Slootmaker SM, De Groot G, Van Mechelen W, Van Lummel RC: Reproducibility of a triaxial seismic accelerometer (DynaPort). Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009, 41(4):810-817.
• [6]El-Zayat BF, Efe T, Heidrich A, Wolf U, Timmesfeld N, Heyse TJ, Lakemeier S, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Schofer MD: Objective assessment of shoulder mobility with a new 3D gyroscope–a validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011, 12:168. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Faber HvH H, van Ipenburg S, van Lummel RC: Measurement of the Elevation and Rotation of the Humerus using a 3D Accelerometer. In Congress of the Dutch Society of Arthroscopy. Ermelo, Denmark: Oral presentation during the Congress of the Dutch Society of Arthroscopy; 2006.
• [8]Theisen C, van Wagensveld A, Timmesfeld N, Efe T, Heyse TJ, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Schofer MD: Co-occurrence of outlet impingement syndrome of the shoulder and restricted range of motion in the thoracic spine–a prospective study with ultrasound-based motion analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:135. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Carstensen B, Simpson J, Gurrin LC: Statistical models for assessing agreement in method comparison studies with replicate measurements. Int J Biostat 2008, 4(1):Article 16.
• [10]Barnett ND, Duncan RD, Johnson GR: The measurement of three dimensional scapulohumeral kinematics–a study of reliability. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1999, 14(4):287-290.
• [11]Hayes K, Walton JR, Szomor ZR, Murrell GA: Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder range of motion. Aust J Physiother 2001, 47(4):289-294.
• [12]Mullaney MJ, McHugh MP, Johnson CP, Tyler TF: Reliability of shoulder range of motion comparing a goniometer to a digital level. Physiother Theory Pract 2010, 26(5):327-333.
• [13]Greenfield BH, Donatelli R, Wooden MJ, Wilkes J: Isokinetic evaluation of shoulder rotational strength between the plane of scapula and the frontal plane. Am J Sports Med 1990, 18(2):124-128.
• [14]Chan KM, Maffulli N, Nobuhara M, Wu JJ: Shoulder instability in athletes. The Asian perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996, 323:106-112.
• [15]Frisiello S, Gazaille A, O’Halloran J, Palmer ML, Waugh D: Test-retest reliability of eccentric peak torque values for shoulder medial and lateral rotation using the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994, 19(6):341-344.
• [16]Molczyk L, Thigpen LK, Eickhoff J, Goldgar D, Gallagher JC: Reliability of testing the knee extensors and flexors in healthy adult women using a Cybex II isokinetic dynamometer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1991, 14(1):37-41.
• [17]Michael T, Gross GMH, Phillips CN, Ann Wray J: Intramachine and intermachine reliability of the Biodex and Cybex® II for knee flexion and extension peak torque and angular work. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1991, 13(6):329-335.
• [18]Raiss P, Rettig O, Wolf S, Loew M, Kasten P: Range of motion of shoulder and elbow in activities of daily life in 3D motion analysis. Z Orthop Unfall 2007, 145(4):493-498.