Biomechanics beyond the lab: Remote technology for osteoarthritis patient data-A scoping review

Abstract

The objective of this project is to produce a review of available and validated technologies suitable for gathering biomechanical and functional research data in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), outside of a traditionally fixed laboratory setting. A scoping review was conducted using defined search terms across three databases (Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, and PEDro), and additional sources of information from grey literature were added. One author carried out an initial title and abstract review, and two authors independently completed full-text screenings. Out of the total 5,164 articles screened, 75 were included based on inclusion criteria covering a range of technologies in articles published from 2015. These were subsequently categorised by technology type, parameters measured, level of remoteness, and a separate table of commercially available systems. The results concluded that from the growing number of available and emerging technologies, there is a well-established range in use and further in development. Of particular note are the wide-ranging available inertial measurement unit systems and the breadth of technology available to record basic gait spatiotemporal measures with highly beneficial and informative functional outputs. With the majority of technologies categorised as suitable for part-remote use, the number of technologies that are usable and fully remote is rare and they usually employ smartphone software to enable this. With many systems being developed for camera-based technology, such technology is likely to increase in usability and availability as computational models are being developed with increased sensitivities to recognise patterns of movement, enabling data collection in the wider environment and reducing costs and creating a better understanding of OA patient biomechanical and functional movement data.

Keywords: biomechanics; gait; inertial measurement unit; osteoarthritis; remote technology.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram (2020) for new systematic reviews included searches from listed databases, registers, and other sources.

Figure 2

Technology results described by type category within a Venn diagram demonstrating several technologies measuring more than one category type (10.7%). IMU wearables were used the most in 25 technologies (30.1%), wearables of other varieties were used in 20 technologies (24.1%), cameras were used in 21 technologies (25.4%), and insoles or platforms were used in 17 technologies (20.5%).

Figure 3

Technology results described by metrics measured within a Venn diagram demonstrating several technologies measuring more than one metric category (12%). Kinematics and SPT measures were used the most in 54 technologies (64.3%), kinetics and SPT measures were used in 16 technologies (19%), kinematics measuring joint angles and ROM were used in 13 technologies (15.5%), and electromyography measures were used in 2 technologies (2.4%).

Figure 4

Technology results divided by application categories based on the criteria described in Table 2. Most technologies were categorised as part remote (65%), whilst 19 technologies were categorised as portable (25%), and 7 technologies were identified as fully remote (9%).