Jim Richards

Inertial sensors may help clinicians to assess patients’ movement and potentially support clinical decision making. Our aim was to determine whether shoulder range of motion during movement tasks measured using inertial sensors is capable of accurately discriminating between patients with different shoulder problems. Inertial sensors were used to measure 3-dimensional shoulder motion during 6 tasks of 37 patients on the waiting list for shoulder surgery. Discriminant function analysis was used to identify whether the range of motion of different tasks could classify patients with different shoulder problems. The discriminant function analysis could correctly classify 91.9% of patients into one of the 3 diagnostic groups based. The tasks that associated a patient with a particular diagnostic group were the following: subacromial decompression: abduction, rotator cuff repair of tears ≤5 cm: flexion and rotator cuff repair of tears >5 cm: combing hair, abduction, and horizontal abduction–adduction. The discriminant function analysis showed that range of motion measured by inertial sensors can correctly classify patients and could be used as a screening tool to support surgery planning.

Background: Gait is crucial for independent living for stroke survivors and assistive devices have been developed to support gait performance. Ankle foot orthosis (AFOs) are commonly provided to stroke survivors to prevent foot drop during walking. However, previous studies have reported limitations of AFOs including them being too heavy, creating skin irritation, and being a stigma of disability. Objective: The purpose was to compare the gait and balance improvement between elastic band orthosis (EBOs) and AFOs. Study Design: Experimental study design. Methods: The AFOs and EBOs were provided to 17 stroke survivors, and changes in gait and balance were assessed compared to barefoot (control). Gait spatiotemporal parameters were measured using the zebris-FDM-Rehawalk® system, and balance ability was evaluated using the time up and go test (TUG). Satisfaction with the EBOs was determined using the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST2.0) questionnaire. Results: The EBO showed significant differences in; gait speed, cadence, stride length, stride time, step length unaffected side, stance phase and swing phase on the affected side, and pre-swing on the unaffected side, and balance performance (TUG) (p<0.05) when compared to the AFO and control conditions. The participants were quite satisfied with the EBOs with QUEST2.0 scores greater than 4 out of 5. Conclusions: EBOs could be provided to stroke survivors given their acceptability and properties to improve gait and balance. The EBO used in this study offered clinically important improvements in gait and balance when compare to AFO and control conditions, and could mitigate against some of the limitations reported in the use of AFOs in stroke survivors.