MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7020225442

Kinematics-Based Recovery Metrics and Inertial Measurement Units to Monitor Recovery Post-Knee Arthroscopic Surgery: A Case Study

2022· dissertation· en· W7020225442 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRehabilitationMeniscusInertial measurement unitVisualizationWork (physics)Range of motionArthroscopy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Physiotherapy after lower-limb injury or surgery is essential for recovery of range of motion, functional movement, strength, and return to sport. Clinicians assess patients, prescribe rehabilitation exercises, and monitor progress through recovery phases. Given the bulk of recovery occurs between in-person visits, coupled with regional differences in access to physiotherapy care, remote monitoring of recovery is warranted to improve patient care and recovery. \nThis work follows the recovery of a patient after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) surgery, a procedure to remove part of the meniscus in the knee joint. The meniscus is a tissue in the knee joint that improves the articulating surface between the femur and tibia, shock absorption, and transmits force. A conservative estimate puts the rate of meniscal tears at 60 per 100,000, making the APM procedure one of the most common orthopaedic procedures performed. Rehabilitation after APM procedure is generally separated into three phases where the continuation to the next phase relies on meeting the goals \nof the previous phase as determined by clinician assessments. Assessments are often done through visual observation, manual testing, and goniometric measurements. In a remote setting, these assessments and measurements are challenging to conduct. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) can reconstruct 3D human motion in an unconstrained space, making them a potentially useful tool for remote visualization of therapy exercises and for generating recovery metrics that clinicians can use to inform decision making. \nThe first part of this work extracts current and exploratory recovery metrics to examine recovery over time, alignment with clinical decisions, and explores novel metrics quantify recovery remotely. Exploratory recovery metrics were extracted based on literature review, clinical input, and incidental findings. Fifty-one (51) recovery metrics were extracted for 5 of the most common rehabilitation exercises: supine heel slide, leg raise, straight line walking, goblet squats, and single leg Romanian deadlifts. Metrics showed strong evidence of recovery if all of the following conditions were observed: improving trends over the recovery period, trends between affected and unaffected limbs, and significant differences. Metrics showed moderate evidence of recovery if two of three conditions were met and weak evidence of recovery if only one or no conditions were met. Of all the metrics examined, 39.2% (20/51) of metrics provided strong evidence of recovery, determined by trends over \nrecovery, between affected and unaffected limbs, and statistical significance. An additional 45.1% (22) of the metrics showed moderate evidence of tracking recovery over time for this case study. Of the 23 exploratory recovery metrics examined, 13 showed strong evidence of recovery and potential for use in tracking rehabilitation. \nThe second component of this thesis examined the IMU metric error relative to motion capture-based metrics and exercise specific tuning of the IMU algorithm noise parameters. Error between IMU and motion capture metrics being smaller than the effect size, as well as IMU metrics demonstrating similar recovery trends to motion capture metrics, were factors considered when determining the remote monitoring potential using IMU metrics. IMU feasibility was considered strong if both these conditions were met, moderate if only one condition was met, and weak if neither condition was met. Fourteen (14) metrics showed strong feasibility for remote monitoring using the algorithm and another 24 metrics showed moderate feasibility. Tuning the IMU algorithm measurement noise parameters for the heel slide and leg raise showed that increasing gyroscope noise improved heel slide metric error 9.48%, while decreasing gyroscope noise improved metric error for the leg raise exercise by \n23.5%. \nFinally, a clinician survey was conducted to gather clinician feedback on recovery metrics and stakeholder opinion on future use of the data. As the target primary users of the data presented in this work, 19 physiotherapists participated in the survey. For all metrics they currently use, 95.5% of respondents said they would use the data provided to assist in monitoring recovery. Eight-one percent (81.1%) of respondents said they would potentially use data from exploratory recovery metrics to assist in their clinical decision making, if the data was available. Strength of clinician feedback from the survey was based on the percentage of responses that said they would use the data to inform therapeutic decision making. \nThis work presents examination of new and existing recovery metrics and a wearable IMU system to monitor recovery remotely using a case study of a patient recovery from a lower limb surgery. Existing metrics provide good indication of recovery, while a subset of exploratory metrics show potential to add valuable recovery information given further validation. Preliminary results indicate that setting exercise specific tuning parameters might have potential for better algorithm performance. Initial clinician feedback on motion capture metrics and future use was primarily positive. Overall, 10 metrics are rated as strong in all two or three categories. Six (6) other metrics were tracked well using the IMU algorithm, however did not show recovery in this case study. Ten (10) metrics showed trends over the recovery period, but only demonstrated moderate success tracking trends using IMUs. Combined, the information presented in this work shows promise in improving patient care and recovery, potentially increasing access to quality care, and transitioning sensor-based human movement reconstruction tools to a clinical setting.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)→Même sujetKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→Travaux en français237 207→