Smartphone and Universal Goniometer for Measurement of Elbow Joint Motions: A Comparative Study

Behnam Behnoush, Nasim Tavakoli, Elham Bazmi, Fariborz Nateghi Fard, Mohammad Hossein Pourgharib Shahi, Arash Okazi, Tahmineh Mokhtari, Behnam Behnoush, Nasim Tavakoli, Elham Bazmi, Fariborz Nateghi Fard, Mohammad Hossein Pourgharib Shahi, Arash Okazi, Tahmineh Mokhtari

Abstract

Background: Universal goniometer (UG) is commonly used as a standard method to evaluate range of motion (ROM) as part of joint motions. It has some restrictions, such as involvement of both hands of the physician, leads to instability of hands and error. Nowadays smartphones usage has been increasing due to its easy application.

Objectives: The study was designed to compare the smartphone inclinometer-based app and UG in evaluation of ROM of elbow.

Materials and methods: The maximum ROM of elbow in position of flexion and pronation and supination of forearm were examined in 60 healthy volunteers with UG and smartphone. Data were analyzed using SPSS (ver. 16) software and appropriate statistical tests were applied, such as paired t-test, ICC and Bland Altman curves.

Results: The results of this study showed high reliability and validity of smartphone in regarding UG with ICC > 0.95. The highest reliability for both methods was in elbow supination and the lowest was in the elbow flexion (0.84).

Conclusions: Smartphones due to ease of access and usage for the physician and the patient, may be good alternatives for UG.

Keywords: Elbow Joint; Goniometry; Range of Motion; Smartphone.

Figures

Figure 1.. Instruments
Figure 1.. Instruments
A, Smartphone (HTC) with Android operating system and equipped with Bubble software; B, The plastic goniometer with 360° conveyor (1° accuracy, European Product).
Figure 2.. The Agreement of the Elbow
Figure 2.. The Agreement of the Elbow
A, flexion, agreement for flexion elbow measurement. 4.60 = 6.679 (outside the limits of agreement. Mean difference -0.408. 95% limits of agreement (-3.856. 3.040). 95% limits of difference (-0.862, 0.046). Averages lies between 128.250 and 139.083. Points outside limits labled by smart phone; B, pronation, agreement for pronation elbow measurements. 5.60 = 8.3% outside limits of agreement. Mean difference: -0.408. 95% limits of agreement (-5.775. 4.959).95% limits of difference (-1.115, 0.299). Averages lie between 57.500 and 79.000; C, supination measurement by goniometer as a standard method and smartphone. Agreement for supination elbow measurements. 4.60 = 6.67% outside the limits of agreement. Mean difference: -0.400, 95% limits of agreements: (-5.989. 5.189). 95%limits of difference: (-1.136. 0.336). Averages lie between 53.500 and 78.167.

References

    1. Ghanjal A. Comparison of permanent impairment measuring methods. Iran J Mil Med Spring. 2010;12(1):13–8.
    1. Rondinelli RD, Genovese E, Brigham C, American Medical Associaacion . Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. American Medical Association; 2008.
    1. Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J. The elbow and its disorders. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009.
    1. Kolber MJ, Hanney WJ. The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(3):306–13.
    1. Shin SH, Ro du H, Lee OS, Oh JH, Kim SH. Within-day reliability of shoulder range of motion measurement with a smartphone. Man Ther. 2012;17(4):298–304. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.02.010.
    1. Charlton PC, Mentiplay BF, Pua YH, Clark RA. Reliability and concurrent validity of a Smartphone, bubble inclinometer and motion analysis system for measurement of hip joint range of motion. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(3):262–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.04.008.
    1. Chapleau J, Canet F, Petit Y, Laflamme GY, Rouleau DM. Validity of goniometric elbow measurements: comparative study with a radiographic method. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):3134–40. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1986-8.
    1. Armstrong AD, MacDermid JC, Chinchalkar S, Stevens RS, King GJ. Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(6):573–80.
    1. Petherick M, Rheault W, Kimble S, Lechner C, Senear V. Concurrent validity and intertester reliability of universal and fluid-based goniometers for active elbow range of motion. Phys Ther. 1988;68(6):966–9.
    1. van de Pol RJ, van Trijffel E, Lucas C. Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological range of motion of upper extremity joints is better if instruments are used: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2010;56(1):7–17.
    1. Lea RD, Gerhardt JJ. Range-of-motion measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(5):784–98.
    1. Hanney WJ, Kolber MJ, Marshall JS. The reliability of clinical measurements designed to quantify shoulder mobility. Phys Ther Rev. 2011;16(6):413–22. doi: 10.1179/1743288x11y.0000000023.
    1. Kolber MJ, Vega F, Widmayer K, Cheng MS. The reliability and minimal detectable change of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(2):176–84. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2010.481011.
    1. Konor MM, Morton S, Eckerson JM, Grindstaff TL. Reliability of three measures of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(3):279–87.
    1. Kolber MJ, Fuller C, Marshall J, Wright A, Hanney WJ. The reliability and concurrent validity of scapular plane shoulder elevation measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012;28(2):161–8. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2011.574203.
    1. Mitchell K, Gutierrez SB, Sutton S, Morton S, Morgenthaler A. Reliability and validity of goniometric iPhone applications for the assessment of active shoulder external rotation. Physiother Theory Pract. 2014;30(7):521–5. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2014.900593.
    1. Czaprowski D, Pawlowska P, Gebicka A, Sitarski D, Kotwicki T. Intra- and interobserver repeatability of the assessment of anteroposterior curvatures of the spine using Saunders digital inclinometer. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2012;14(2):145–53. doi: 10.5604/15093492.992283.
    1. Prushansky T, Deryi O, Jabarreen B. Reproducibility and validity of digital inclinometry for measuring cervical range of motion in normal subjects. Physiother Res Int. 2010;15(1):42–8. doi: 10.1002/pri.443.
    1. Yaikwawongs N, Limpaphayom N, Wilairatana V. Reliability of digital compass goniometer in knee joint range of motion measurement. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009;92(4):517–22.
    1. Ockendon M, Gilbert RE. Validation of a novel smartphone accelerometer-based knee goniometer. J Knee Surg. 2012;25(4):341–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1299669.
    1. Cleffken B, van Breukelen G, Brink P, van Mameren H, Olde Damink S. Digital goniometric measurement of knee joint motion. Evaluation of usefulness for research settings and clinical practice. Knee. 2007;14(5):385–9. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2007.07.004.
    1. Jenny JY. Measurement of the knee flexion angle with a Smartphone-application is precise and accurate. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(5):784–7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.11.013.
    1. Ferriero G, Vercelli S, Sartorio F, Munoz Lasa S, Ilieva E, Brigatti E, et al. Reliability of a smartphone-based goniometer for knee joint goniometry. Int J Rehabil Res. 2013;36(2):146–51. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e32835b8269.
    1. Blonna D, Zarkadas PC, Fitzsimmons JS, O'Driscoll SW. Accuracy and inter-observer reliability of visual estimation compared to clinical goniometry of the elbow. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(7):1378–85. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1720-9.
    1. de Carvalho RM, Mazzer N, Barbieri CH. Analysis of the reliability and reproducibility of goniometry compared to hand photogrammetry. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(3):139–49. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000300003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner