Arm position during daily activity.

Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gait & Posture (Impact Factor: 1.97). 06/2008; 28(4):581-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A new method of evaluation for functional assessment of the shoulder during daily activity is presented. An ambulatory system using inertial sensors attached on the humerus was used to detect the ability to work at a specific position of the shoulder. Nine arm positions were defined based on humerus elevation. The method was tested on 31 healthy volunteer subjects. First, we estimated the ability of the system to detect the different elevation angles and arm positions of each subject. Following that, we evaluated their arm positions during approximately 8h of daily activities. Each arm position was recognized with a good sensitivity (range 80-100%) and specificity (range 96-99%). During daily activity, we estimated the frequency (number/h) that the humerus reached each arm position during the periods of 0-1s (period P1), 1-5s (period P2) and 5-30s (period P3). Our data showed that all subjects had 96% of their arm position reached under the 5th level (100-120 degrees ). No significant difference was observed between dominant and non-dominant sides for the frequency and duration of arm positions (p>0.3). Our evaluation was in accordance with the clinical questionnaire (the Constant score) for the P1 duration, but differed for longer periods P2 and P3. By quantifying the arm positions and their durations for both shoulders, we proposed a new score to evaluate the ability to work at a specific level based on the symmetry index of the arms activity. Using this score, we obtained, on average, good symmetry for healthy subjects. This score can be useful in evaluating the asymmetry in arm function in patients with a shoulder disease. The proposed technique could be used in a number of shoulder diseases where problems in performing daily activities should be expressed in terms of objective measure of arm position.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The estimation of muscle forces in musculoskeletal shoulder models is still controversial. Two different methods are widely used to solve the indeterminacy of the system: electromyography (EMG)-based methods and stress-based methods. The goal of this work was to evaluate the influence of these two methods on the prediction of muscle forces, glenohumeral load and joint stability after total shoulder arthroplasty. An EMG-based and a stress-based method were implemented into the same musculoskeletal shoulder model. The model replicated the glenohumeral joint after total shoulder arthroplasty. It contained the scapula, the humerus, the joint prosthesis, the rotator cuff muscles supraspinatus, subscapularis and infraspinatus and the middle, anterior and posterior deltoid muscles. A movement of abduction was simulated in the plane of the scapula. The EMG-based method replicated muscular activity of experimentally measured EMG. The stress-based method minimised a cost function based on muscle stresses. We compared muscle forces, joint reaction force, articular contact pressure and translation of the humeral head. The stress-based method predicted a lower force of the rotator cuff muscles. This was partly counter-balanced by a higher force of the middle part of the deltoid muscle. As a consequence, the stress-based method predicted a lower joint load (16% reduced) and a higher superior-inferior translation of the humeral head (increased by 1.2 mm). The EMG-based method has the advantage of replicating the observed cocontraction of stabilising muscles of the rotator cuff. This method is, however, limited to available EMG measurements. The stress-based method has thus an advantage of flexibility, but may overestimate glenohumeral subluxation.
    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 04/2014; · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For all segments and tests, a modified Kalman filter and a quasi-static sensor fusion algorithm were equally accurate (precision and accuracy ∼2–3◦) compared to normalized least mean squares filtering, recursive least-squares filtering and standard Kalman filtering. The aims were to: (1) compare adaptive filtering techniques used for sensor fusion and (2) evaluate the precision and accuracy for a chosen adaptive filter. Motion sensors (based on inertial measurement units) are limited by accumulative integration errors arising from sensor bias. This drift can partly be handled with adaptive filtering techniques. To advance the measurement technique in this area, a new modified Kalman filter is developed. Differences in accuracy were observed during different tests especially drift in the internal/external rotation angle. This drift can be minimized if the sensors include magnetometers.
    Measurement Science and Technology 01/2013; 24(8):085703. · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Finite element analyses, with increasing levels of detail and complexity, are becoming effective tools to evaluate the performance of joint replacement prostheses and to predict the behaviour of bone. As a first step towards the study of the complications of shoulder arthroplasty, the aim of this work was the development and validation of a 3D finite element model of an intact scapula for the prediction of the bone remodelling process based on a previously published model that attempts to follow Wolff's law. The boundary conditions applied include full muscle and joint loads taken from a multibody system of the upper limb based on the same subject whose scapula was here analysed. To validate the bone remodelling simulations, qualitative and quantitative comparisons between the predicted and the specimen's bone density distribution were performed. The results showed that the bone remodelling model was able to successfully reproduce the actual bone density distribution of the analysed scapula.
    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 12/2012; · 1.39 Impact Factor