Evaluating the Reliability of a Shape Capturing Process for Transradial Residual Limb Using a Non-Contact Scanner
<p>A description of the main aspects of the shape capture setup showing the client (on the height-adjustable bed) and the individual performing the scanning. Noteworthy are the features (sheet and mat) to improve scanner performance, as well as the positioning of the client’s arm using a thin wooden board.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Key anatomical landmarks identified and marked by the treating prosthetist; (<b>b</b>) The limb absentee is instructed to lay supine on a height-adjustable bed with their residual limb shoulder placed onto a thin wooden board; (<b>c</b>) The scanner is aimed at the residual limb directly above its surface., then moved in a steady and continuous manner either clockwise or counterclockwise around the residual limb.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Key anatomical landmarks were used to define the XYZ coordinate system, where the X-axis is defined by the medial and lateral epicondyles, the Z-axis would pass through the distal end of the model, and the Y-Z plane is aligned with the olecranon process; (<b>b</b>) Volume of interest is defined and extracted; (<b>c</b>) Models are overlayed and manually aligned using the graphical user interface in the Spectra Software, then their alignment is refined with an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Each residual limb model is confined in a bounding box in the software. Then each model was sliced in the X-Y plane along the Z-axis. A slice is as shown in the red box. The cross-section area (CSA), Medial-Lateral (M-L) and Anterior-Posterior (A-P) measurement of each slice were also computed.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Bland-Altman plot of mean volume difference of residuum models (<b>a</b>) between observers 1 and 2, (<b>b</b>) between repeated measurements by observer 1; and (<b>c</b>) between repeated measurements by observer 2.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Mean differences in CSA, A-P and M-L measurements within and between observers along the residuum model across 15 participants. The residuum lengths were normalized for each participant to match up the distal and proximal ends, as well as the epicondyles. The dash line indicates the location of the epicondyles.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Shape Capturing Process
2.1.1. Setup
2.1.2. Instrument
2.1.3. Shape Capture Procedure
2.2. Evaluation of Reliability
2.2.1. Participants
2.2.2. Data Collection
2.2.3. Data Processing
2.2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Suyi Yang, E.; Aslani, N.; McGarry, A. Influences and trends of various shape-capture methods on outcomes in trans-tibial prosthetics: A systematic review. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2019, 43, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kofman, R.; Beekman, A.M.; Emmelot, C.H.; Geertzen, J.H.B.; Dijkstra, P.U. Measurement properties and usability of non-contact scanners for measuring transtibial residual limb volume. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2018, 42, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armitage, L.; Kwah, L.K.; Kark, L. Reliability and validity of the iSense optical scanner for measuring volume of transtibial residual limb models. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2019, 43, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seminati, E.; Talamas, D.C.; Young, M.; Twiste, M.; Dhokia, V.; Bilzon, J.L.J. Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanders, J.E.; Fatone, S. Residual Limb Volume Change: Systematic Review of Measurement and Management. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2011, 48, 949–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilja, M.; Öberg, T. Proper Time for Definitive Transtibial Prosthetic Fitting. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 1997, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, A.S.; Steer, J.W.; Woods, C.J.; Worsley, P.R. Registering methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2016, 53, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seminati, E.; Young, M.; Canepa Talamas, D.; Twiste, M.; Dhokia, V.; Bilzon, J. Reliability of three different methods for assessing amputee residuum shape and volume: 3D scanners vs. circumferential measurements. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2022, 46, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, A.S.; Donovan-Hall, M.K.; Kheng, S.; Bou, K.; Tech, A.; Steer, J.W.; Metcalf, C.D.; Worsley, P.R. Selecting Appropriate 3D Scanning Technologies for Prosthetic Socket Design and Transtibial Residual Limb Shape Characterization. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2022, 34, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer-Wilzing, V.G.; Bolt, A.; Geertzen, J.H.; Emmelot, C.H.; Baars, E.C.; Dijkstra, P.U. Variation in results of volume measurements of stumps of lower-limb amputees: A comparison of 4 methods. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011, 92, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zachariah, S.G.; Saxena, R.; Fergason, J.R.; Sanders, J.E. Shape and volume change in the transtibial residuum over the short term: Preliminary investigation of six subjects. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2004, 41, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, Y.P.; Mak, A.F.T.; Leung, A.K.L. State-of-the-art methods for geometric and biomechanical assessments of residual limbs: A review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2001, 38, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Paternò, L.; Ibrahimi, M.; Rosini, E.; Menfi, G.; Monaco, V.; Gruppioni, E.; Ricotti, L.; Menciassi, A. Residual limb volume fluctuations in transfemoral amputees. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SpectraTM Scanner User’s Manual; Vorum Research Corporation: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2020; pp. 1–66.
- Olsen, J.; Day, S.; Dupan, S.; Nazarpour, K.; Dyson, M. 3D-Printing and Upper-Limb Prosthetic Sockets: Promises and Pitfalls. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2021, 29, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishman, S.; Kay, H.W. The Muenster-Type Below-Elbow Socket, an Evaluation. Artif. Limbs 1964, 8, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2010, 47, 931–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonett, D.G. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1331–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Convery, P.P.; Buis, A.W.P.; Wilkie, R.; Sockalingam, S.; Blair, A.; McHugh, B. Measurement of the consistency of patellar-tendon-bearing cast rectification. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2003, 27, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngan, C.C.; Sivasambu, H.; Kelland, K.; Ramdial, S.; Andrysek, J. Understanding the adoption of digital workflows in orthotic & prosthetic practice from practitioner perspectives: A qualitative descriptive study. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2022, 46, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolt, A.; De Boer-Wilzing, V.G.; Geertzen, J.H.B.; Emmelot, C.H.; Baars, E.C.T.; Dijkstra, P.U. Variation in measurements of transtibial stump model volume: A comparison of five methods. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 89, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, J.E.; Youngblood, R.T.; Hafner, B.J.; Cagle, J.C.; McLean, J.B.; Redd, C.B.; Dietrich, C.R.; Ciol, M.A.; Allyn, K.J. Effects of socket size on metrics of socket fit in trans-tibial prosthesis users. Med. Eng. Phys. 2017, 44, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, C. The Evolution of Upper Limb Prosthetic Socket Design. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2008, 20, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgibbons, P.; Medvedev, G. Functional and Clinical Outcomes of Upper Extremity Amputation. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2015, 23, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Billock, J.N. The Northwestern University supracondylar suspension technique for below-elbow amputations. Orthot. Prosthet. 1972, 26, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
- Sauter, W.F.; Naumann, S.; Milner, M. A three-quarter type below-elbow socket for myoelectric prostheses. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 1986, 10, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Participant | Sex | Cause of Limb Absence | Side | Age (Years) | Residuum Model Volume (mL) | Residuum Model Length (mm) | Overall A-P Measurement (mm) | Overall M-L Measurement (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | M | Congenital | L | 9 | 571 | 141 | 140 | 84 |
2 | M | Congenital | L | 32 | 703 | 235 | 126 | 81 |
3 | M | Trauma | R | 38 | 809 | 280 | 124 | 78 |
4 | F | Congenital | R | 9 | 123 | 59 | 65 | 61 |
5 | F | Congenital | L | 59 | 482 | 118 | 114 | 90 |
6 | F | Congenital | R | 62 | 380 | 94 | 117 | 88 |
7 | M | Congenital | L | 40 | 378 | 94 | 92 | 78 |
8 | M | Congenital | L | 5 | 193 | 100 | 92 | 59 |
9 | F | Congenital | L | 11 | 252 | 89 | 111 | 69 |
10 | F | Congenital | L | 22 | 206 | 89 | 95 | 63 |
11 | F | Congenital | L | 14 | 726 | 123 | 129 | 96 |
12 | M | Congenital | L | 17 | 343 | 94 | 82 | 79 |
13 | M | Trauma | R | 13 | 699 | 127 | 130 | 105 |
14 | M | Congenital | L | 43 | 825 | 252 | 123 | 86 |
15 | M | Congenital | L | 14 | 316 | 83 | 140 | 79 |
Mean (1 SD) | 24.6 (18.7) | 467 (238) | 132 (68) | 112 (22) | 80 (13) |
Observer | MD (SD) | ICC | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-rater | 1 | 0.73 (12.21) | 0.999 | 0.998–1.000 |
2 | 1.60 (11.86) | 0.998 | 0.996–0.999 | |
Inter-rater | 1 vs. 2 | −2.75 (15.27) | 0.998 | 0.995–0.999 |
Observer | MD (SD) | ICC | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall A-P measurement | ||||
Intra-rater | 1 | 0.49 (4.16) | 0.946 | 0.880–0.980 |
2 | 0.88 (4.35) | 0.926 | 0.832–0.973 | |
Inter-rater | 1 vs. 2 | −0.05 (7.71) | 0.918 | 0.841–0.969 |
Overall M-L measurement | ||||
Intra-rater | 1 | −0.34 (0.99) | 0.996 | 0.990–0.998 |
2 | 0.09 (1.38) | 0.992 | 0.981–0.997 | |
Inter-rater | 1 vs. 2 | −0.80 (1.32) | 0.991 | 0.981–0.997 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ngan, C.C.; Sivasambu, H.; Ramdial, S.; Andrysek, J. Evaluating the Reliability of a Shape Capturing Process for Transradial Residual Limb Using a Non-Contact Scanner. Sensors 2022, 22, 6863. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186863
Ngan CC, Sivasambu H, Ramdial S, Andrysek J. Evaluating the Reliability of a Shape Capturing Process for Transradial Residual Limb Using a Non-Contact Scanner. Sensors. 2022; 22(18):6863. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186863
Chicago/Turabian StyleNgan, Calvin C., Harry Sivasambu, Sandra Ramdial, and Jan Andrysek. 2022. "Evaluating the Reliability of a Shape Capturing Process for Transradial Residual Limb Using a Non-Contact Scanner" Sensors 22, no. 18: 6863. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186863