Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Spinal Stenosis | Research article

The role of wearable devices and objective gait analysis for the assessment and monitoring of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of wearable devices for objective gait measurement of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) patients, with a focus on relevant gait metrics.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted of five electronic databases to identify studies that assessed gait metrics by wearable or portable technology. Data was collected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

Results

Four articles were identified for inclusion in this review. The objectives, methodology and quality of the studies varied. No single gait metric was investigated in all four studies, making comparison difficult. The most relevant metrics reported included gait cycle, gait velocity, step length and cadence, which were reported in two studies. Two studies explored gait symmetry. Differences between LSS patients and normal healthy subjects are demonstrable using wearable technology.

Conclusions

The measurements of gait cycle, cadence, step length, gait velocity, and number of steps with wearable devices can be used in the gait measurement of LSS patients for initial assessment, and objective outcomes following interventions. However, data and analysis are limited, and further studies are necessary to comment on reliability.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Genevay S, Atlas SJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):253–65.CrossRef Genevay S, Atlas SJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):253–65.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ahmed SI, Javed G, Bareeqa SB, et al. Comparison of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for stenotic lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2018;10(8):e3135.PubMedPubMedCentral Ahmed SI, Javed G, Bareeqa SB, et al. Comparison of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for stenotic lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2018;10(8):e3135.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Genevay S, Atlas SJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):253-65.CrossRef Genevay S, Atlas SJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):253-65.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mobbs R, Phan KJJEST. Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2017;7(1):e9.CrossRef Mobbs R, Phan KJJEST. Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2017;7(1):e9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, PJJJoNS R. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):179–86.CrossRef Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, PJJJoNS R. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):179–86.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413–23.CrossRef Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413–23.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1424–34.CrossRef Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1424–34.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.CrossRef Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Khodadadeh S, Eisenstein SM. Gait analysis of patients with low back pain before and after surgery. Spine. 1993;18(11):1451–5.CrossRef Khodadadeh S, Eisenstein SM. Gait analysis of patients with low back pain before and after surgery. Spine. 1993;18(11):1451–5.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Mobbs RJ, Katsinas CJ, Choy WJ, Rooke K, JoSS MMJ. Objective monitoring of activity and Gait Velocity using wearable accelerometer following lumbar microdiscectomy to detect recurrent disc herniation. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(4):792–7.CrossRef Mobbs RJ, Katsinas CJ, Choy WJ, Rooke K, JoSS MMJ. Objective monitoring of activity and Gait Velocity using wearable accelerometer following lumbar microdiscectomy to detect recurrent disc herniation. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(4):792–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Papadakis NC, Christakis DG, Tzagarakis GN, et al. Gait variability measurements in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: part a. comparison with healthy subjects. Physiol Meas. 2009;30(11):1171.CrossRef Papadakis NC, Christakis DG, Tzagarakis GN, et al. Gait variability measurements in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: part a. comparison with healthy subjects. Physiol Meas. 2009;30(11):1171.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Papadakis NC, Christakis DG, Tzagarakis GN, et al. Gait variability measurements in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: part B. preoperative versus postoperative gait variability. Physiol Meas. 2009;30(11):1187.CrossRef Papadakis NC, Christakis DG, Tzagarakis GN, et al. Gait variability measurements in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: part B. preoperative versus postoperative gait variability. Physiol Meas. 2009;30(11):1187.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nagai K, Aoyama T, Yamada M, et al. Quantification of Changes in Gait Characteristics Associated With Intermittent Claudication in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):E136–42.CrossRef Nagai K, Aoyama T, Yamada M, et al. Quantification of Changes in Gait Characteristics Associated With Intermittent Claudication in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):E136–42.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Whittle MW. Clinical gait analysis: a review. Hum Mov Sci. 1996;15(3):369–87.CrossRef Whittle MW. Clinical gait analysis: a review. Hum Mov Sci. 1996;15(3):369–87.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hanlon M, Anderson R. Real-time gait event detection using wearable sensors. Gait Posture. 2009;30(4):523–7.CrossRef Hanlon M, Anderson R. Real-time gait event detection using wearable sensors. Gait Posture. 2009;30(4):523–7.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Maffiuletti NA, Gorelick M, Kramers-de Quervain I, et al. Concurrent validity and intrasession reliability of the IDEEA accelerometry system for the quantification of spatiotemporal gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):160–3.CrossRef Maffiuletti NA, Gorelick M, Kramers-de Quervain I, et al. Concurrent validity and intrasession reliability of the IDEEA accelerometry system for the quantification of spatiotemporal gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):160–3.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gonzalez RC, Lopez AM, Rodriguez-Uria J, Alvarez D, Alvarez JC. Real-time gait event detection for normal subjects from lower trunk accelerations. Gait Posture. 2010;31(3):322–5.CrossRef Gonzalez RC, Lopez AM, Rodriguez-Uria J, Alvarez D, Alvarez JC. Real-time gait event detection for normal subjects from lower trunk accelerations. Gait Posture. 2010;31(3):322–5.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kim SC, Kim JY, Lee HN, et al. A quantitative analysis of gait patterns in vestibular neuritis patients using gyroscope sensor and a continuous walking protocol. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:58.CrossRef Kim SC, Kim JY, Lee HN, et al. A quantitative analysis of gait patterns in vestibular neuritis patients using gyroscope sensor and a continuous walking protocol. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:58.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Maharaj M, Rao PJ. Physical activity measured with accelerometer and self-rated disability in lumbar spine surgery: a prospective study. Global Spine J. 2015;6(5):459–64.CrossRef Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Maharaj M, Rao PJ. Physical activity measured with accelerometer and self-rated disability in lumbar spine surgery: a prospective study. Global Spine J. 2015;6(5):459–64.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Phan K, RJJJoss M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery, neurosurgery and orthopedics: guidelines for the surgeon scientist. J Spine Surg. 2015;1(1):19.PubMedPubMedCentral Phan K, RJJJoss M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery, neurosurgery and orthopedics: guidelines for the surgeon scientist. J Spine Surg. 2015;1(1):19.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Sun J, Liu YC, Yan SH, et al. Clinical gait evaluation of patients with lumbar spine stenosis. Orthop Surg. 2018;10(1):32–9.CrossRef Sun J, Liu YC, Yan SH, et al. Clinical gait evaluation of patients with lumbar spine stenosis. Orthop Surg. 2018;10(1):32–9.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lee SI, Campion A, Huang A, et al. Identifying predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis patients using smart-shoe technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):77.CrossRef Lee SI, Campion A, Huang A, et al. Identifying predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis patients using smart-shoe technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):77.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Loske S, Nuesch C, Byrnes KS, et al. Decompression surgery improves gait quality in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(12):2195–204.CrossRef Loske S, Nuesch C, Byrnes KS, et al. Decompression surgery improves gait quality in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(12):2195–204.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Kmet LM, Cook LS, Lee RC. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields; 2004. Kmet LM, Cook LS, Lee RC. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields; 2004.
25.
go back to reference Downs SH, NJJoE B, Health C. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRef Downs SH, NJJoE B, Health C. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Carragee EJ, Cheng IJTSJ. Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010;10(4):313–20.CrossRef Carragee EJ, Cheng IJTSJ. Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010;10(4):313–20.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Carragee EJJTSJ. The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”. Spine J. 2010;10(4):283–4.CrossRef Carragee EJJTSJ. The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”. Spine J. 2010;10(4):283–4.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Rao PJ, Phan K, Maharaj MM, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, RJJJoCN M. Accelerometers for objective evaluation of physical activity following spine surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;26:14–8.CrossRef Rao PJ, Phan K, Maharaj MM, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, RJJJoCN M. Accelerometers for objective evaluation of physical activity following spine surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;26:14–8.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20—79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15–9.CrossRef Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20—79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15–9.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Conrad BP, Shokat MS, Abbasi AZ, et al. Associations of self-report measures with gait, range of motion and proprioception in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Gait Posture. 2013;38(4):987–92.CrossRef Conrad BP, Shokat MS, Abbasi AZ, et al. Associations of self-report measures with gait, range of motion and proprioception in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Gait Posture. 2013;38(4):987–92.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The role of wearable devices and objective gait analysis for the assessment and monitoring of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review
Publication date
01-12-2019
Keyword
Spinal Stenosis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2663-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019 Go to the issue