A comparative study of splint effectiveness in limiting forearm rotation

Study Design: Case Study Series.---------- Introduction: Restriction of forearm rotation may be required for effective management and rehabilitation of the upper limb after trauma.---------- Purpose of the Study: To compare the effectiveness of four splints in restricting forearm rotation.---------- Methods: Muenster, Sugartong, antipronation distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ), and standard wrist splints were fabricated for five healthy participants. Active range of motion (AROM) in forearm pronation and supination was measured with a goniometer for each splint, at the initial point of sensory feedback and during exertion of maximal force.---------- Results: Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant differences between splints for all four AROM measures. Post hoc paired t-tests showed that the Sugartong splint was significantly more restrictive in pronation than the Muenster splint. The antipronation DRUJ splint provided significantly greater restriction in pronation than the standard wrist splint. No splints immobilized the forearm completely.---------- Conclusions: The Sugartong splint is recommended for maximal restriction in pronation, but individual patient characteristics require consideration in splint choice.

Cluster analysis of movement patterns in multiarticular actions: A tutorial

The present paper proposes a technical analysis method for extracting information about movement patterning in studies of motor control, based on a cluster analysis of movement kinematics. In a tutorial fashion, data from three different experiments are presented to exemplify and validate the technical method. When applied to three different basketball-shooting techniques, the method clearly distinguished between the different patterns. When applied to a cyclical wrist supination-pronation task, the cluster analysis provided the same results as an analysis using the conventional discrete relative phase measure. Finally, when analyzing throwing performance constrained by distance to target, the method grouped movement patterns together according to throwing distance. In conclusion, the proposed technical method provides a valuable tool to improve understanding of coordination and control in different movement models, including multiarticular actions.

Suspected mechanisms in the cause of overuse running injuries : A clinical review

Context: Various epidemiological studies have estimated that up to 70% of runners sustain an overuse running injury each year. Although few overuse running injuries have an established cause, more than 80% of running-related injuries occur at or below the knee, which suggests that some common mechanisms may be at work. The question then becomes, are there common mechanisms related to overuse running injuries? Evidence Acquisition: Research studies were identified via the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE PsycInfo, and CINAHL (1980–July 2008). Inclusion was based on evaluation of risk factors for overuse running injuries. Results: A majority of the risk factors that have been researched over the past few years can be generally categorized into 2 groups: atypical foot pronation mechanics and inadequate hip muscle stabilization. Conclusion: Based on the review of literature, there is no definitive link between atypical foot mechanics and running injury mechanisms. The lack of normative data and a definition of typical foot structure has hampered progress. In contrast, a large and growing body of literature suggests that weakness of hip-stabilizing muscles leads to atypical lower extremity mechanics and increased forces within the lower extremity while running.

Effect of position on precision within the recording field of a markerless motion capture system

Introduction Markerless motion capture systems are relatively new devices that can significantly speed up capturing full body motion. A precision of the assessment of the finger’s position with this type of equipment was evaluated at 17.30 ± 9.56 mm when compare to an active marker system [1]. The Microsoft Kinect was proposed to standardized and enhanced clinical evaluation of patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy [2]. Markerless motion capture systems have the potential to be used in a clinical setting for movement analysis, as well as for large cohort research. However, the precision of such system needs to be characterized. Global objectives • To assess the precision within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system Openstage 2 (Organic Motion, NY). • To compare the markerless motion capture system with an optoelectric motion capture system with active markers. Specific objectives • To assess the noise of a static body at 13 different location within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the smallest oscillation detected by the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the difference between both systems regarding the body joint angle measurement. Methods Equipment • OpenStage® 2 (Organic Motion, NY) o Markerless motion capture system o 16 video cameras (acquisition rate : 60Hz) o Recording zone : 4m * 5m * 2.4m (depth * width * height) o Provide position and angle of 23 different body segments • VisualeyezTM VZ4000 (PhoeniX Technologies Incorporated, BC) o Optoelectric motion capture system with active markers o 4 trackers system (total of 12 cameras) o Accuracy : 0.5~0.7mm Protocol & Analysis • Static noise: o Motion recording of an humanoid mannequin was done in 13 different locations o RMSE was calculated for each segment in each location • Smallest oscillation detected: o Small oscillations were induced to the humanoid mannequin and motion was recorded until it stopped. o Correlation between the displacement of the head recorded by both systems was measured. A corresponding magnitude was also measured. • Body joints angle: o Body motion was recorded simultaneously with both systems (left side only). o 6 participants (3 females; 32.7 ± 9.4 years old) • Tasks: Walk, Squat, Shoulder flexion & abduction, Elbow flexion, Wrist extension, Pronation / supination (not in results), Head flexion & rotation (not in results), Leg rotation (not in results), Trunk rotation (not in results) o Several body joint angles were measured with both systems. o RMSE was calculated between signals of both systems. Results Conclusion Results show that the Organic Motion markerless system has the potential to be used for assessment of clinical motor symptoms or motor performances However, the following points should be considered: • Precision of the Openstage system varied within the recording field. • Precision is not constant between limb segments. • The error seems to be higher close to the range of motion extremities.