Assessment of Spinal Motion in Young Adults (15 to 26 Years of Age) Without Spine Deformity Using Inertial Sensor and Manual Measurements
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The evaluation of spinal range of motion is paramount in the context of spinal disorders, especially considering emerging surgical techniques focused on motion preservation and circumventing spinal fusion. Manual measurement techniques, which utilize a goniometer and tape measure, demand proficiency to accurately assess spinal motion. This becomes further complicated in patients with spinal deformities. Inertial sensors emerge as a potential clinical solution. By assessing electronic inertial sensor performance in capturing thoracolumbar spinal range of motion, this study evaluates the level of association observed between the range of motion measurements captured by manual and sensor methods.
Methods: Participants included 19 healthy young adults (74% female, average age 20 years [range 15-26]) without spinal conditions. Each performed a series of manual spinal motion evaluations quantified using a standard goniometer and a tape measure. Participants repeated the motions with an electronic inertial sensor attached to their C7 spinous process. Each manual and electronic motion sequence was performed three times. Data were analyzed with a Pearson’s correlation to assess congruence between the datasets, and a paired t-test compared the mean values between the two groups to examine the two motion measurement methodologies.
Results: Association between the different planes of motion for manual and electronic repeated clinical motions were moderate (r=0.44) to strong (r=0.70). Manual measurements showed similar levels of variation to that of the electronic measurements. Upon comparing the manual and electronic measurement sets through a paired t-test, the mean values exhibited no statistically significant differences.
Conclusion: The electronic motion measurements were congruent with manual measurements based on the correlation values and t-tests presented. Thus, inertial sensors can approximate the measurements of manual methods in assessing spinal range of motion. This demonstrates the potential for clinical adaptation of these sensors into spine centers to objectively assess patient outcomes in spinal motion preserved surgeries.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Sarwahi V, Wendolowski S, Gecelter R, Maguire K, Gambassi M, Orlando D, Lo Y, Amaral T. When do patients return to physical activities and athletics after scoliosis surgery?: a validated patient questionnaire based study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(3):167–71. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002284
3. Antonacci CL, Antonacci MD, Bassett WP, Betz RR, Amaral T. Treatment of patients with scoliosis using a unique anterior scoliosis correction technique. Med Res Arch J. 2021;9(7). doi:10.18103/mra.v9i7.2463
4. Cortell-Tormo JM, García-Jaén M, Ruiz-Fernández D, Fuster-Lloret V. Lumbatex: A wearable monitoring system based on inertial sensors to measure and control the lumbar spine motion. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehab Eng. 2019;27(8):1644-53.
doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2927083
5. Johnson M, Mulcahey MJ. Interrater reliability of spine range of motion measurement using a tape measure and goniometer. J Chiropr Med. 2021;20(3):138-47. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2021.09.003
6. Rezvani A, Ergin O, Karacan I, Oncu M. Validity and reliability of the metric measurements in the assessment of lumbar spine motion in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):E1189-96. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825ef954
7. Mulcahey PJ, Knott PT, Madiraju A, Haque N, Haoson DS, Bassett WP, Cuddihy LA, Antonacci MD, Betz RR. An inertial sensor-based protocol for spinal range of motion measurements. Stud Health Technol Inform. Jun 28 2021;280:136–40. doi:10.3233/SHTI210452
8. Page K, Gmelich C, Thakur A, Heyer JH, Hillstrom HJ, Groisser B, Morse KW, Li D, Cunningham ME, Hresko MT, Widmann RF. 3D surface topographic optical scans yield highly reliable global spine range of motion measurements in scoliotic and non-scoliotic adolescents. Children (Basel). 2022;9(11):1756. doi:10.3390/children9111756
9. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. The influence of spine and trunk deformity on preoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients' health-related quality of life questionnaire responses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(8):861-8. doi:10.1097/00007632-200404150-00008
10. Papi E, Koh WS, McGregor AH. Wearable technology for spine movement assessment: A systematic review. J Biomech. Nov 7 2017;64:186-97. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.09.037
11. Michaud F, Lugrís U, Cuadrado J. Determination of the 3D human spine posture from wearable inertial sensors and a multibody model of the spine. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22(13):4796. doi:10.3390/s22134796
12. Udoekwere UI, Krzak JJ, Graf A, Hassani S, Tarima S, Riordan M, Sturm PF, Hammerberg KW, Gupta P, Anissipour AK, Harris GF. Effect of lowest instrumented vertebra on trunk mobility in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing a posterior spinal fusion. Spine Deform. 2014;2(4):291–300. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2014.04.006
13. Pahys JM, Samdani AF, Hwang SW, Warshauer S, Gaughan JP, Chafetz RS. Trunk range of motion and patient outcomes after anterior vertebral body tethering versus posterior spinal fusion: comparison using computerized 3D motion capture technology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(17):1563–72. doi:10.2106/JBJS.21.00992
14. Page P. Current concepts in muscle stretching for exercise and rehabilitation. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(1):109-19.
15. Baker N, Gough C, Gordon SJ. Inertial sensor reliability and validity for static and dynamic balance in healthy adults: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(15):5167. doi:10.3390/s21155167
16. Troke M, Moore AP, Maillardet FJ, Cheek E. A normative database of lumbar spine ranges of motion. Man Ther. 2005;10(3):198-206. doi:10.1016/j.math.2004.10.004
17. Bible JE, Biswas D, Miller CP, Whang PG, Grauer JN. Normal functional range of motion of the lumbar spine during 15 activities of daily living. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(2):106-12. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181981823
18. Kebaetse M, McClure P, Pratt NA. Thoracic position effect on shoulder range of motion, strength, and three-dimensional scapular kinematics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(8):945-50. doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90088-6
19. Bonato P. Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2005;2(1):2. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-2-2
20. DIERS Biomedical Solutions [Internet]. Schlangenbad, Germany. Available from: https://diers.eu/en/products/sensor-systems/diers-i-emg/
21. Liang R, Yip J, Fan Y, Cheung JPY, To KM. Electromyographic analysis of paraspinal muscles of scoliosis patients using machine learning approaches. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1177. doi:10.3390/ijerph19031177