Parameterization and reliability of single-leg balance test assessed with inertial sensors in stroke survivors: a cross-sectional study

David Perez-Cruzado, Manuel González-Sánchez, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas, David Perez-Cruzado, Manuel González-Sánchez, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas

Abstract

Background and purpose: There are no published studies on the parameterisation and reliability of the single-leg stance (SLS) test with inertial sensors in stroke patients. Purpose: to analyse the reliability (intra-observer/inter-observer) and sensitivity of inertial sensors used for the SLS test in stroke patients. Secondary objective: to compare the records of the two inertial sensors (trunk and lumbar) to detect any significant differences in the kinematic data obtained in the SLS test.

Methods: Design: cross-sectional study. While performing the SLS test, two inertial sensors were placed at lumbar (L5-S1) and trunk regions (T7-T8). Setting: Laboratory of Biomechanics (Health Science Faculty - University of Málaga). Participants: Four chronic stroke survivors (over 65 yrs old). Measurement: displacement and velocity, Rotation (X-axis), Flexion/Extension (Y-axis), Inclination (Z-axis); Resultant displacement and velocity (V): RV = √Vx2+Vy2+Vz2. Along with SLS kinematic variables, descriptive analyses, differences between sensors locations and intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were also calculated.

Results: Differences between the sensors were significant only for left inclination velocity (p = 0.036) and extension displacement in the non-affected leg with eyes open (p = 0.038). Intra-observer reliability of the trunk sensor ranged from 0.889-0.921 for the displacement and 0.849-0.892 for velocity. Intra-observer reliability of the lumbar sensor was between 0.896-0.949 for the displacement and 0.873-0.894 for velocity. Inter-observer reliability of the trunk sensor was between 0.878-0.917 for the displacement and 0.847-0.884 for velocity. Inter-observer reliability of the lumbar sensor ranged from 0.870-0.940 for the displacement and 0.863-0.884 for velocity.

Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the kinematic records made by an inertial sensor during the development of the SLS testing between two inertial sensors placed in the lumbar and thoracic regions. In addition, inertial sensors. Have the potential to be reliable, valid and sensitive instruments for kinematic measurements during SLS testing but further research is needed.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Localization of the inertial sensors.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Origin of the coordinates in the inertial sensors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Example of graphs generated during the SLS.

References

    1. HomeStroke Association
    1. Kamphuis JF, de Kam D, Geurts ACH, Weerdesteyn V. Is weight-bearing asymmetry associated with postural instability after stroke? A systematic review. Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:692137.
    1. Kavanagh JJ, Menz HB. Accelerometry: a technique for quantifying movement patterns during walking. Gait Posture. 2008;28:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.10.010.
    1. Christovão TCL, Neto HP, Grecco LAC, Ferreira LAB, Franco de Moura RC, Eliege de Souza M, Franco de Oliveira LV, Oliveira CS. Effect of different insoles on postural balance: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25:1353–1356. doi: 10.1589/jpts.25.1353.
    1. Vargas AIC, González-Sánchez M. Estudio comparativo entre dos análisis del riego de caídas. Rev Fisioter. 2009;8:29–32.
    1. Freeman MA. Co-ordination exercises in the treatment of functional instability of the foot. Physiotherapy. 1965;51:393–395.
    1. Hatton AL, Rome K, Dixon J, Martin DJ, McKeon PO. Footwear interventions: a review of their sensorimotor and mechanical effects on balance performance and gait in older adults. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2013;103:516–533. doi: 10.7547/1030516.
    1. Kelly NA, Ford MP, Standaert DG, Watts RL, Bickel CS, Moellering DR, Tuggle SC, Williams JY, Lieb L, Windham ST, Bamman MM. Novel, hich-intensity exercise prescription improves muscle mass, mitochondrial function, and physical capacity in individuals with parkinson’s disease. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2014;116(5):582–592. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01277.2013.
    1. Nott CR, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Relationships between frontal-plane angular momentum and clinical balance measures during post-stroke hemiparetic walking. Gait Posture. 2014;39:129–134. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.06.008.
    1. Hancock NJ, Shepstone L, Winterbotham W, Pomeroy V. Effects of lower limb reciprocal pedalling exercise on motor function after stroke: a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Int J Stroke Off J Int Stroke Soc. 2012;7:47–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00728.x.
    1. French B, Thomas L, Leathley M, Sutton C, McAdam J, Forster A, Langhorne P, Price C, Walker A, Watkins C. Does repetitive task training improve functional activity after stroke? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med Off J UEMS Eur Board Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;42:9–14.
    1. Cuesta-Vargas AI, Galán-Mercant A, Williams JM. The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis. Phys Ther Rev PTR. 2010;15:462–473. doi: 10.1179/1743288X11Y.0000000006.
    1. Al-Mulla MR, Sepulveda F, Colley M. A review of non-invasive techniques to detect and predict localised muscle fatigue. Sensors. 2011;11:3545–3594. doi: 10.3390/s110403545.
    1. Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Differences in trunk kinematic between frail and nonfrail elderly persons during turn transition based on a smartphone inertial sensor. BioMed Res Int. 2013;2013:279197. doi: 10.1155/2013/279197.
    1. Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:100. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-100.
    1. Mancini M, Salarian A, Carlson-Kuhta P, Zampieri C, King L, Chiari L, Horak FB. ISway: a sensitive, valid and reliable measure of postural control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:59. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-59.
    1. Lugade V, Fortune E, Morrow M, Kaufman K. Validity of using tri-axial accelerometers to measure human movement-Part I: Posture and movement detection. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.06.005.
    1. Bonnet S, Couturier P, Favre-Reguillon F, Guillemaud R. Evaluation of postural stability by means of a single inertial sensor. Conf Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Conf. 2004;3:2275–2278. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1403661.
    1. Weenk D, van Beijnum B-JF, Baten CTM, Hermens HJ, Veltink PH. Automatic identification of inertial sensor placement on human body segments during walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:31. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-31.
    1. Huisinga JM, St George RJ, Spain R, Overs S, Horak FB. Postural response latencies are related to balance control during standing and walking in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(7):1390–1397. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.004.
    1. Springer BA, Marin R, Cyhan T, Roberts H, Gill NW. Normative values for the unipedal stance test with eyes open and closed. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2001. 2007;30:8–15. doi: 10.1519/00139143-200704000-00003.
    1. Cuesta-Vargas A, Giné-Garriga M. Development of a new index of balance in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096529.
    1. Flansbjer U-B, Blom J, Brogårdh C. The reproducibility of Berg balance scale and the single-leg stance in chronic stroke and the relationship between the two tests. PM R. 2012;4:165–170. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.11.004.
    1. Goldberg A, Casby A, Wasielewski M. Minimum detectable change for single-leg-stance-time in older adults. Gait Posture. 2011;33:737–739. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.02.020.
    1. Birmingham TB. Test-retest reliability of lower extremity functional instability measures. Clin J Sport Med Off J Can Acad Sport Med. 2000;10:264–268. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200010000-00007.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Moncada-Torres A, Leuenberger K, Gonzenbach R, Luft A, Gassert R. Activity classification based on inertial and barometric pressure sensors at different anatomical locations. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:1245–1263. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/35/7/1245.
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice. 3. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilki; 2006.
    1. Favre J, Jolles BM, Aissaoui R, Aminian K. Ambulatory measurement of 3D knee joint angle. J Biomech. 2008;41:1029–1035. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.12.003.
    1. Saremi K, Marehbian J, Yan X, Regnaux J-P, Elashoff R, Bussel B, Dobkin BH. Reliability and validity of bilateral thigh and foot accelerometry measures of walking in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:297–305. doi: 10.1177/1545968306287171.
    1. Tura A, Raggi M, Rocchi L, Cutti AG, Chiari L. Gait symmetry and regularity in transfemoral amputees assessed by trunk accelerations. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7:4. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-7-4.
    1. Watanabe T, Saito H. Tests of wireless wearable sensor system in joint angle measurement of lower limbs. Conf Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Conf. 2011;2011:5469–5472.
    1. Williams JM, Haq I, Lee RY. A novel approach to the clinical evaluation of differential kinematics of the lumbar spine. Man Ther. 2013;18:130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.08.003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera