Recovery of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures vs Gait Parameters Obtained by Instrumented Insoles After Tibial and Malleolar Fractures: Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: New technologies from the field of mobile health (mHealth) are increasingly used to improve patient monitoring during rehabilitation. While in recent years, mobile phones, health apps, personal digital assistants, and smartwatches opened up new diagnostic and monitoring opportunities for patients, the development of innovative sensor devices, such as instrumented insoles, has now reached a sufficient level of usability with promising opportunities for clinical practice. According to research on the best method for monitoring recovery after musculoskeletal injury or surgery, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and wearables such as instrumented insoles are among the most promising newer options. However, it is unknown how a patient's health perception and improvements in instrumented insole-derived gait parameters correlate after surgery for tibial or malleolar fractures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the longitudinal trajectories in separate PROMIS (sub)scores with gait and further patient-specific parameters, as well as associations between PROMIS scores and gait parameters. It was also aimed to determine the influence of anthropometric parameters and comorbidities. METHODS: A total of 85 patients (39 women and 46 men; average age 50.8, SD 17.1 years) requiring surgery after tibial or malleolar fractures were included in this prospective longitudinal observational study. In the hospital and during follow-up visits, the patients completed the PROMIS Global Health and Pain Interference questionnaires. During the same visits, individually fitted instrumented insoles with 16 pressure sensors, an accelerometer, and a gyroscope each were used to assess the maximal force, pressure distribution, and angular velocity during walking with data being recorded at 100 Hz. Statistical analyses were conducted using linear mixed effect models, pairwise Spearman correlation coefficients, and generalized additive models. RESULTS: The gait parameters assessed via the instrumented insoles quickly improved during the first 3 months after surgery, followed by a slowing of further improvement. After surgery, the PROMIS scores increased or decreased to extrema that were reached after 6 weeks to 3 months, followed by a return to preinjury values. Between 3 and 6 months, no significant improvements in PROMIS scores were observed. Between 6 months and 1 year, the Physical Health and Mental Health scores still improved significantly (P=.003 in both cases). Men had better Physical Health and lower Pain Interference scores than women (P=.01 and P=.03, respectively). Hypertension had a negative effect on the Physical Health score (P=.03). The associations between the PROMIS score and gait parameters were strongest at approximately 3 months after surgery, predominantly between the Pain Interference score and gait parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The patients' perception improved later than the objective gait parameters obtained by instrumented insoles did. When the gait pattern improved, pain perception correlated with the gait parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00025108; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00025108.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».