Using Electromagnetic Sensors to Measure Range of Motion Beneath Immobilization Devices on the Foot

Transcription

1 Using Electromagnetic Sensors to Measure Range of Motion Beneath Immobilization Devices on the Foot Collin Barber MD 1, Dor Shoshan BS 2, Alex McLaren MD 1, Paulo Castaneda BSE 1 1 Banner University Medical Center Phoenix 2 University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix

2 Disclosures None of the authors have any financial disclosures or conflicts of interest

3 Introduction Immobilization is necessary for management of many conditions of the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint Physician applied splints have been traditionally used for immobilization purposes Braces are becoming less expensive and may be more convenient and comfortable for patients It is unknown how much motion is restricted by generic immobilization devices

4 Question Does a physician applied splint provide more immobilization than a hard soled post-operative shoe or a CAM boot at the hallux MTP joint?

5 Hypothesis The physician applied splint will limit motion than the hardsoled post-operative shoe or the high-performance boot

6 Methods 10 healthy volunteers were instrumented with electromagnetic sensors on the right foot Range of motion of ankle and hallux were documented during 4 tasks Each of three immobilization devices was fitted to each subject and the exercises were repeated in randomized order Position and rotation data were collected and analyzed to determine reduction of motion

7 Results Non weight-bearing All devices significantly restricted ROM at MTP compared to no device (p<0.05) No significant difference between devices on reduction in ROM Standing CAM boot and plaster splint decreased ankle range of motion compared to baseline or between devices Gait All devices significantly reduced ROM at MTP and ankle during stance phase of gait (p<0.05) No significant difference between devices on reduction of ROM ROM (degrees) Active ROM with Maximum Ankle Dorsiflexion MTP IP Ankle MTP IP Ankle MTP IP Ankle MTP IP Ankle Baseline - No Splint Post Operative Shoe Walking Boot Plaster Splint

8 Discussion All devices proved effective at immobilizing the hallux MTP compared to no immobilization device The walking boot showed a trend to less movement than the other devices Results support the use of generic devices in non-operative and post-operative treatment of hallux conditions that require immobilization Use of generic devices may be less expensive when taking into account use of operating room costs used to apply custom splints.

9 Conclusions Generic immobilization devices are effective at immobilizing the hallux and have benefits of being convenient and comfortable Electromagnetic tracking is a previously unreported and safe way to study motion under immobilization devices

10 References Trnka, H. J., Parks, B. G., Ivanic, G., Chu, I. T., Easley, M. E., Schon, L. C., & Myerson, M. S. (2000). Six first metatarsal shaft osteotomies: mechanical and immobilization comparisons. Clinical orthopaedics and related research,381, Kadel, N. J., Segal, A., Orendurff, M., Shofer, J., & Sangeorzan, B. (2004). The efficacy of two methods of ankle immobilization in reducing gastrocnemius, soleus, and peroneal muscle activity during stance phase of gait. Foot & ankle international, 25(6), Bauer T, Biau D, Lortat-Jacob A, Hardy P. Percutaneous hallux valgus correction using the Reverdin-Isham osteotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010; 96: Pollo, FE. Walking boot design. Orthopedics 1999 Fowler, P. T., Botte, M. J., Mathewson, J. W., Speth, S. R., Byrne, T. P., & Sutherland, D. H. (1993). Energy cost of ambulation with different methods of foot and ankle immobilization. Journal of orthopaedic research, 11(3), Waters, R. L., Campbell, Joyce, Thomas, Lynn, Hugos, Lucinda, & Davis, Paul. (1982). Energy costs of walking in lower-extremity plaster casts. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 64(6), Raikin, S. M., Parks, B. G., Noll, K. H., & Schon, L. C. (2001). Biomechanical evaluation of the ability of casts and braces to immobilize the ankle and hindfoot. Foot & ankle international, 22(3), Moraiti, C., Klouche, S., Stiglitz, Y., Hardy, P., & Bauer, T. (2015). Reliability of a New Radiological Method for Assessment of the Postoperative Immobilization of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint. Foot & ankle international, 36(3), Hopson, M. M., McPoil, T. G., & Cornwall, M. W. (1995). Motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Reliability and validity of four measurement techniques. Journal of the american podiatric medical association, (85), Nawoczenski, D. A., Baumhauer, J. F., & Umberger, B. R. (1999). Relationship between clinical measurements and motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait*. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 81(3), Kitaoka, H. B., Luo, Z. P., & An, K. N. (1997). Three-dimensional analysis of normal ankle and foot mobility. The American journal of sports medicine,25(2), Milne, A. D., Chess, D. G., Johnson, J. A., & King, G. J. W. (1996). Accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking device: a study of the optimal operating range and metal interference. Journal of biomechanics, 29(6), Umberger, B. R., Nawoczenski, D. A., & Baumhauer, J. F. (1999). Reliability and validity of first metatarsophalangeal joint orientation measured with an electromagnetic tracking device. Clinical Biomechanics, 14(1), Macario, A. (2010). What does one minute of operating room time cost? Journal of clinical anesthesia, 22(4),