Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
11791470
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85200240744
Journal Title
Medical Devices: Evidence and Research
Volume
17
Start Page
261
End Page
269
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Medical Devices: Evidence and Research Vol.17 (2024) , 261-269
Suggested Citation
Liengswangwong W., Lertviboonluk N., Yuksen C., Jamkrajang P., Limroongreungrat W., Mongkolpichayaruk A., Jenpanitpong C., Watcharakitpaisan S., Palee C., Reechaipichitkool P., Thaipasong S. Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research Vol.17 (2024) , 261-269. 269. doi:10.2147/MDER.S475166 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/100390
Title
Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: The assessment of cervical spine motion is critical for out-of-hospital patients who suffer traumatic spinal cord injuries, given the profound implications such injuries have on individual well-being and broader public health concerns. 3D Optoelectronic systems (BTS SmartDX) are standard devices for motion measurement, but their price, complexity, and size prevent them from being used outside of designated laboratories. This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) in gauging cervical spine motion among healthy volunteers, using a 3D optoelectronic motion capture system as a reference. Methods: Twelve healthy volunteers participated in the study. They underwent lifting, transferring, and tilting simulations using a long spinal board, a Sked stretcher, and a vacuum mattress. During these simulations, cervical spine angular movements—including flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral flexion—were concurrently measured using the IMU and an optoelectronic device. We employed the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Bland-Altman plot to assess reliability and validity. Results: A single statistically significant difference was observed between the two devices in the flexion-extension plane. The mean differences across all angular planes ranged from −1.129° to 1.053°, with the most pronounced difference noted in the lateral flexion plane. Ninety-five percent of the angular motion disparities ascertained by the SmartDX and IMU were less than 7.873° for the lateral flexion plane, 11.143° for the flexion-extension plane, and 25.382° for the axial rotation plane. Conclusion: The IMU device exhibited robust validity when assessing the angular motion of the cervical spine in the axial rotation plane and demonstrated commendable validity in both the lateral flexion and flexion-extension planes.