[en] (Background) Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) provide a low-cost, portable solution to obtain functional measures similar to those captured with three-dimensional gait analysis, including spatiotemporal gait characteristics. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) workflow using ankle-worn IMUs measuring impact load, limb impact load asymmetry and knee range of motion in combination with patient-reported outcome measures. (Methods) A pilot cohort of 14 patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis was prospectively enrolled. RPM in the community was performed weekly from 2 up to 6 weeks post-operatively using wearable IMUs. The following data were collected using IMUs: mobility (Bone Stimulus and cumulative impact load), impact load asymmetry and maximum knee flexion angle. In addition, scores from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol Five-dimension (EQ-5D) with EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and 6 Minute Walk Test were collected. (Results) On average, the Bone Stimulus and cumulative impact load improved 52% (p = 0.002) and 371% (p = 0.035), compared to Post-Op Week 2. The impact load asymmetry value trended (p = 0.372) towards equal impact loading between the operative and non-operative limb. The mean maximum flexion angle achieved was 99.25° at Post-Operative Week 6, but this was not significantly different from pre-operative measurements (p = 0.1563). There were significant improvements in the mean EQ-5D (0.20; p = 0.047) and OKS (10.86; p < 0.001) scores both by 6 weeks after surgery, compared to pre-operative scores. (Conclusions) This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a reliable and low-maintenance workflow system to remotely monitor post-operative progress in knee arthroplasty patients. Preliminary data indicate IMU outputs relating to mobility, impact load asymmetry and range of motion can be obtained using commercially available IMU sensors. Further studies are required to directly correlate the IMU sensor outputs with patient outcomes to establish clinical significance.
Research Center/Unit :
Auckland
Disciplines :
Engineering, computing & technology: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Bolam, Scott M.; Auckland City Hospital > Department of Orthopaedics
Batinica, Bruno; University of Auckland > Department of Surgery
Yeung, Ted C.; Auckland Bioengineering Institute - ABI > Faculty of Engineering > Musculoskeletal Modelling Group
Weaver, Sebastian; Auckland Bioengineering Institute - ABI > Faculty of Engineering > Musculoskeletal Modelling Group
Cantamessa, Astrid ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département d'aérospatiale et mécanique > Mécanique des matériaux biologiques et bioinspirés
Vanderboor, Teresa C.; Auckland City Hospital > Department of Orthopaedics
Yeung, Shasha; Auckland Bioengineering Institute - ABI > Faculty of Engineering > Musculoskeletal Modelling Group
Munro, Jacob T.; Auckland City Hospital > Department of Orthopaedics
Fernandez, Justin W.; Auckland Bioengineering Institute - ABI > Faculty of Engineering > Musculoskeletal Modelling Group
Besier, Thor F.; Auckland Bioengineering Institute - ABI > Faculty of Engineering > Musculoskeletal Modelling Group
Monk, Andrew Paul; Auckland City Hospital > Department of Orthopaedics
Language :
English
Title :
Remote Patient Monitoring withWearable Sensors Following Knee Arthroplasty
Publication date :
July 2021
Journal title :
Sensors
ISSN :
1424-8220
eISSN :
1424-3210
Publisher :
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Switzerland
Brander, V.A.; David Stulberg, S.; Adams, A.D.; Harden, R.N.; Bruehl, S.; Stanos, S.P.; Houle, T. Predicting Total Knee Replacement Pain: A Prospective, Observational Study. In Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003; pp. 27–36.
Bourne, R.B.; Chesworth, B.M.; Davis, A.M.; Mahomed, N.N.; Charron, K.D.J. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: Who is satisfied and who is not? In Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 57–63.
Beswick, A.D.; Wylde, V.; Gooberman-Hill, R.; Blom, A.; Dieppe, P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of Prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open 2012, 2, e000435. [CrossRef]
Luna, I.E.; Kehlet, H.; Peterson, B.; Wede, H.R.; Hoevsgaard, S.J.; Aasvang, E.K. Early patient-reported outcomes versus objective function after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt. J. 2017, 99-B, 1167–1175. [CrossRef]
Daugaard, R.; Tjur, M.; Sliepen, M.; Lipperts, M.; Grimm, B.; Mechlenburg, I. Are patients with knee osteoarthritis and patients with knee joint replacement as physically active as healthy persons? J. Orthop. Transl. 2018, 14, 8–15. [CrossRef]
Kayani, B.; Konan, S.; Tahmassebi, J.; Rowan, F.E.; Haddad, F.S. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101B, 24–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Small, S.R.; Bullock, G.S.; Khalid, S.; Barker, K.; Trivella, M.; Price, A.J. Current clinical utilisation of wearable motion sensors for the assessment of outcome following knee arthroplasty: A scoping review. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e033832. [CrossRef]
Mundt, M.; Thomsen, W.; David, S.; Dupré, T.; Bamer, F.; Potthast, W.; Markert, B. Assessment of the measurement accuracy of inertial sensors during different tasks of daily living. J. Biomech. 2019, 84, 81–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sharif Bidabadi, S.; Murray, I.; Lee, G.Y.F. Validation of foot pitch angle estimation using inertial measurement unit against marker-based optical 3D motion capture system. Biomed. Eng. Lett. 2018, 8, 283–290. [CrossRef]
Chapman, R.M.; Moschetti, W.E.; Van Citters, D.W. Stance and swing phase knee flexion recover at different rates following total knee arthroplasty: An inertial measurement unit study. J. Biomech. 2019, 84, 129–137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Trojaniello, D.; Cereatti, A.; Pelosin, E.; Avanzino, L.; Mirelman, A.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Della Croce, U. Estimation of step-by-step spatio-temporal parameters of normal and impaired gait using shank-mounted magneto-inertial sensors: Application to elderly, hemiparetic, parkinsonian and choreic gait. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Picerno, P. 25 years of lower limb joint kinematics by using inertial and magnetic sensors: A review of methodological approaches. Gait Posture 2017, 51, 239–246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Milner, C.E.; Hamill, J.; Davis, I. Are knee mechanics during early stance related to tibial stress fracture in runners? Clin. Biomech. 2007, 22, 697–703. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Luna, I.E.; Kehlet, H.; Wede, H.R.; Hoevsgaard, S.J.; Aasvang, E.K. Objectively measured early physical activity after total hip or knee arthroplasty. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2019, 33, 509–522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burland, J.P.; Outerleys, J.B.; Lattermann, C.; Davis, I.S. Reliability of wearable sensors to assess impact metrics during sport-specific tasks. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 406–411. [CrossRef]
Gastin, P.B.; McLean, O.C.; Breed, R.V.P.; Spittle, M. Tackle and impact detection in elite Australian football using wearable microsensor technology. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 947–953. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bravo-Illanes, G.; Halvorson, R.T.; Matthew, R.P.; Lansdown, D.; Ma, C.B.; Bajcsy, R. IMU Sensor Fusion Algorithm for Monitoring Knee Kinematics in ACL Reconstructed Patients. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 5877–5881.
Benson, L.C.; Tait, T.J.; Befus, K.; Choi, J.; Hillson, C.; Stilling, C.; Grewal, S.; MacDonald, K.; Pasanen, K.; Emery, C.A. Validation of a commercially available inertial measurement unit for recording jump load in youth basketball players. J. Sports Sci. 2020, 38, 928–936. [CrossRef]
Kayaalp, M.E.; Agres, A.N.; Reichmann, J.; Bashkuev, M.; Duda, G.N.; Becker, R. Validation of a novel device for the knee monitoring of orthopaedic patients. Sensors 2019, 19, 5193. [CrossRef]
Bell, K.M.; Onyeukwu, C.; Smith, C.N.; Oh, A.; Dabbs, A.D.; Piva, S.R.; Popchak, A.J.; Lynch, A.D.; Irrgang, J.J.; McClincy, M.P. A portable system for remote rehabilitation following a total knee replacement: A pilot randomized controlled clinical study. Sensors 2020, 20, 6118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ramkumar, P.N.; Haeberle, H.S.; Ramanathan, D.; Cantrell, W.A.; Navarro, S.M.; Mont, M.A.; Bloomfield, M.; Patterson, B.M. Remote Patient Monitoring Using Mobile Health for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Validation of a Wearable and Machine Learning–Based Surveillance Platform. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 2253–2259. [CrossRef]
Hemert, W.L.W.; Senden, R.; Grimm, B.; Kester, A.D.M.; Linde, M.J.A.; Heyligers, I.C. Patella retention versus replacement in total knee arthroplasty; functional and clinimetric aspects. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2009, 129, 259–265. [CrossRef]
Kwasnicki, R.M.; Ali, R.; Jordan, S.J.; Atallah, L.; Leong, J.J.H.; Jones, G.G.; Cobb, J.; Yang, G.Z.; Darzi, A. A wearable mobility assessment device for total knee replacement: Alongitudinal feasibility study. Int. J. Surg. 2015, 18, 14–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hackett, N.J.; De Oliveira, G.S.; Jain, U.K.; Kim, J.Y.S. ASA class is a reliable independent predictor of medical complications and mortality following surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2015, 18, 184–190. [CrossRef]
Dawson, J.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Murray, D.; Carr, A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J. Bone Jt Surg. Ser. B 1998, 80, 63–69. [CrossRef]
Harris, K.; Dawson, J.; Gibbons, E.; Lim, C.; Beard, D.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Price, A. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat. Outcome Meas 2016, 7, 101–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brooks, R.; De Charro, F. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy (N.Y.) 1996, 37, 53–72. [CrossRef]
Kind, P.; Dolan, P.; Gudex, C.; Williams, A. Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br. Med. J. 1998, 316, 736–741. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
IMU Bone Stimulus—IMeasureU. Available online: https://imeasureu.com/2019/10/30/imu-bone-stimulus/(accessed on 28 February 2021).
Jakobsen, T.L.; Kehlet, H.; Bandholm, T. Reliability of the 6-min walk test after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 2625–2628. [CrossRef]
Besier, T.F.; Sturnieks, D.L.; Alderson, J.A.; Lloyd, D.G. Repeatability of gait data using a functional hip joint centre and a mean helical knee axis. J. Biomech. 2003, 36, 1159–1168. [CrossRef]
Yeung, T.; Cantamessa, A.; Batinica, B.; Bolam, S.; Kempa-Liehr, A.W.; Monk, A.P.; Besier, T. Estimation of Knee Flexion in Knee Arthroplasty Patients using only Shank Mounted IMUs. In Proceedings of the XXVIII Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB), Stockholm, Sweden, 25–29 July 2021.
Kempa-Liehr, A.W.; Oram, J.; Wong, A.; Finch, M.; Besier, T. Feature engineering workflow for activity recognition from synchronized inertial measurement units. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2019, 1180, 223–231.
Brouwer, N.P.; Yeung, T.; Bobbert, M.F.; Besier, T.F. 3D trunk orientation measured using inertial measurement units during anatomical and dynamic sports motions. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport 2021, 31, 358–370. [CrossRef]
Waterson, H.B.; Clement, N.D.; Eyres, K.S.; Mandalia, V.I.; Toms, A.D. The early outcome of kinematic versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomised Control Trial. Bone Jt. J. 2016, 98-B, 1360–1368. [CrossRef]
Beard, D.J.; Davies, L.J.; Cook, J.A.; MacLennan, G.; Price, A.; Kent, S.; Hudson, J.; Carr, A.; Leal, J.; Campbell, H.; et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 746–756. [CrossRef]
Young, S.W.; Walker, M.L.; Bayan, A.; Briant-Evans, T.; Pavlou, P.; Farrington, B. The Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: No Difference in 2-year Functional Outcomes Using Kinematic versus Mechanical Alignment in TKA: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 9–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kahn, T.L.; Schwarzkopf, R. Do Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Have a Higher Activity Level Compared to Patients With Osteoarthritis? Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2016, 7, 142–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nüesch, E.; Dieppe, P.; Reichenbach, S.; Williams, S.; Iff, S.; Jüni, P. All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: Population based cohort study. BMJ 2011, 342, 638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Konan, S.; Hossain, F.; Patel, S.; Haddad, F.S. Measuring function after hip and knee surgery: The evidence to support performance-based functional outcome tasks. Bone Jt. J. 2014, 96-B, 1431–1435. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stevens-Lapsley, J.E.; Schenkman, M.L.; Dayton, M.R. Comparison of self-reported knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score to performance measures in patients after total knee arthroplasty. PM&R 2011, 3, 541–549.
Harding, P.; Holland, A.E.; Delany, C.; Hinman, R.S. Do activity levels increase after total hip and knee arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 1502–1511. [CrossRef]
Steinhoff, A.K.; Bugbee, W.D. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score has higher responsiveness and lower ceiling effect than Knee Society Function Score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016, 24, 2627–2633. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Husted, H.; Lunn, T.H.; Troelsen, A.; Gaarn-Larsen, L.; Kristensen, B.B.; Kehlet, H. Why still in hospital after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop. 2011, 82, 679–684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Artz, N.; Dixon, S.; Wylde, V.; Beswick, A.; Blom, A.; Gooberman-Hill, R. Physiotherapy Provision Following Discharge after Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement: A Survey of Current Practice at High-Volume NHS Hospitals in England and Wales. Musculoskelet. Care 2013, 11, 31–38. [CrossRef]
Medina-Mirapeix, F.; Oliveira-Sousa, S.; Sobral-Ferreira, M.; Del Baño-Aledo MEEscolar-Reina, P.; Montilla-Herrador, J.; Collins, S. Continuity of rehabilitation services in post-acute care from the ambulatory outpatients’ perspective: A qualitative study. J. Rehabil. Med. 2011, 43, 58–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medina, M.; Babiuch, C.; Card, M.; Gavrilescu, R.; Zafirau, W.; Boose, E.; Giuliano, K.; Kim, A.; Jones, R.; Boissy, A. Home monitoring for COVID-19: Posted 18 April 2020. Cleve Clin. J. Med. 2020, 87, 1–4.
Pratap Singh, R.; Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Vaishya, R.; Ali, S. Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) for orthopaedic in COVID-19 pandemic: Roles, challenges, and applications. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, 713–717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
