The Knee · 2017
Smartphone assessment of knee flexion compared to radiographic standards.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dietz Matthew J, Sprando Daniel, Hanselman Andrew E, Regier Michael D, Frye Benjamin M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Measuring knee range of motion (ROM) is an important assessment for the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. Recent technological advances have led to the development and use of accelerometer-based smartphone applications to measure knee ROM. The purpose of this study was to develop, standardize, and validate methods of utilizing smartphone accelerometer technology compared to radiographic standards, visual estimation, and goniometric evaluation.
METHODS: Participants used visual estimation, a long-arm goniometer, and a smartphone accelerometer to determine range of motion of a cadaveric lower extremity; these results were compared to radiographs taken at the same angles.
RESULTS: The optimal smartphone position was determined to be on top of the leg at the distal femur and proximal tibia location. Between methods, it was found that the smartphone and goniometer were comparably reliable in measuring knee flexion (ICC=0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.96). Visual estimation was found to be the least reliable method of measurement.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the smartphone accelerometer was non-inferior when compared to the other measurement techniques, demonstrated similar deviations from radiographic standards, and did not appear to be influenced by the person performing the measurements or the girth of the extremity.
METHODS: Participants used visual estimation, a long-arm goniometer, and a smartphone accelerometer to determine range of motion of a cadaveric lower extremity; these results were compared to radiographs taken at the same angles.
RESULTS: The optimal smartphone position was determined to be on top of the leg at the distal femur and proximal tibia location. Between methods, it was found that the smartphone and goniometer were comparably reliable in measuring knee flexion (ICC=0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.96). Visual estimation was found to be the least reliable method of measurement.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the smartphone accelerometer was non-inferior when compared to the other measurement techniques, demonstrated similar deviations from radiographic standards, and did not appear to be influenced by the person performing the measurements or the girth of the extremity.