Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 1, Issue 5 | Pages 78 - 85
1 May 2012
Entezari V Della Croce U DeAngelis JP Ramappa AJ Nazarian A Trechsel BL Dow WA Stanton SK Rosso C Müller A McKenzie B Vartanians V Cereatti A

Objectives

Cadaveric models of the shoulder evaluate discrete motion segments using the glenohumeral joint in isolation over a defined trajectory. The aim of this study was to design, manufacture and validate a robotic system to accurately create three-dimensional movement of the upper body and capture it using high-speed motion cameras.

Methods

In particular, we intended to use the robotic system to simulate the normal throwing motion in an intact cadaver. The robotic system consists of a lower frame (to move the torso) and an upper frame (to move an arm) using seven actuators. The actuators accurately reproduced planned trajectories. The marker setup used for motion capture was able to determine the six degrees of freedom of all involved joints during the planned motion of the end effector.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 3 | Pages 165 - 177
1 Mar 2023
Boyer P Burns D Whyne C

Aims

An objective technological solution for tracking adherence to at-home shoulder physiotherapy is important for improving patient engagement and rehabilitation outcomes, but remains a significant challenge. The aim of this research was to evaluate performance of machine-learning (ML) methodologies for detecting and classifying inertial data collected during in-clinic and at-home shoulder physiotherapy exercise.

Methods

A smartwatch was used to collect inertial data from 42 patients performing shoulder physiotherapy exercises for rotator cuff injuries in both in-clinic and at-home settings. A two-stage ML approach was used to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data (to remove non-exercise data) and subsequently for classification of exercises. We evaluated the performance impact of grouping exercises by motion type, inclusion of non-exercise data for algorithm training, and a patient-specific approach to exercise classification. Algorithm performance was evaluated using both in-clinic and at-home data.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 2 | Pages 113 - 121
1 Feb 2021
Nicholson JA Oliver WM MacGillivray TJ Robinson CM Simpson AHRW

Aims

To evaluate if union of clavicle fractures can be predicted at six weeks post-injury by the presence of bridging callus on ultrasound.

Methods

Adult patients managed nonoperatively with a displaced mid-shaft clavicle were recruited prospectively. Ultrasound evaluation of the fracture was undertaken to determine if sonographic bridging callus was present. Clinical risk factors at six weeks were used to stratify patients at high risk of nonunion with a combination of Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) ≥ 40, fracture movement on examination, or absence of callus on radiograph.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 1, Issue 9 | Pages 210 - 217
1 Sep 2012
Walton JR Murrell GAC

Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is any significant difference in temporal measurements of pain, function and rates of re-tear for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) patients compared with those patients undergoing open RCR. Methods. This study compared questionnaire- and clinical examination-based outcomes over two years or longer for two series of patients who met the inclusion criteria: 200 open RCR and 200 arthroscopic RCR patients. All surgery was performed by a single surgeon. . Results. Most pain measurements were similar for both groups. However, the arthroscopic RCR group reported less night pain severity at six months, less extreme pain and greater satisfaction with their overall shoulder condition than the open RCR group. The arthroscopic RCR patients also had earlier recovery of strength and range of motion, achieving near maximal recovery by six months post-operatively whereas the open RCR patients took longer to reach the same recovery level. The median operative times were 40 minutes (20 to 90) for arthroscopic RCR and 60 minutes (35 to 120) for open RCR. Arthroscopic RCR had a 29% re-tear rate compared with 52% for the open RCR group (p < 0.001). . Conclusions. Arthroscopic RCR involved less extreme pain than open RCR, earlier functional recovery, a shorter operative time and better repair integrity