Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

COMBINING INERTIAL SENSORS AND PRINCIPLE COMPONENT ANALYSIS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN KNEE REHABILITATION EXERCISES

The British Orthopaedic Research Society (BORS) Annual Meeting, Leeds, England, September 2018.



Abstract

Whilst home-based exercise rehabilitation plays a key role in determining patient outcomes following orthopaedic intervention (e.g. total knee replacement), it is very challenging for clinicians to objectively monitor patient progress, attribute functional improvement (or lack of) to adherence/non-adherence and ultimately prescribe personalised interventions. This research aimed to identify whether 4 knee rehabilitation exercises could be objectively distinguished from each other using lower body inertial measurement units (IMUs) and principle components analysis (PCA) in the hope to facilitate objective home monitoring of exercise rehabilitation.

5 healthy participants performed 4 repetitions of 4 exercises (knee flexion in sitting, knee extension, single leg step down and sit to stand) whilst wearing lower body IMU sensors (Xsens, Holland; sampling at 60 Hz). Anthropometric measurements and a static calibration were combined to create the biomechanical model, with 3D hip, knee and ankle angles computed using the Euler sequence ZXY. PCA was performed on time normalised (101 points) 3D joint angle data which reduced all joint angle waveforms into new uncorrelated PCs via an orthogonal transformation. Scatterplots of PC1 versus PC2 were used to visually inspect for clustering between the PC values for the 4 exercises. A one-way ANOVA was performed on the first 3 PC values for the 9 variables under analysis. Games-Howell post hoc tests identified variables that were significantly different between exercises.

All exercises were clearly distinguishable using the PC scatterplot representing hip flexion-extension waveforms. ANOVA results revealed that PC1 for the knee flexion angle waveform was the only PC value statistically different across all exercises.

Findings demonstrate clear potential to objectively distinguish between different knee rehabilitation exercises using IMU sensors and PCA. Flexion-extension angles at the hip and knee appear most suited for accurate separation, which will be further investigated on patient data and additional exercises.