Joint position error after neck protraction-retraction movements in healthy office workers: a cross-sectional study.

Since the upper cervical spine (UCS) has been regarded to be distinct from the lower cervical spine (LCS), joint position error (JPE) needs to be tested separately for both regions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the JPE after cervical protraction/retraction movements, involving opposite movements of extension and flexion for the UCS and LCS. These movements are frequently performed during office work. Cervical JPEs were tracked in thirty healthy office workers while performing four tests of cervical pro-retraction movements with variations in vision and movement direction, and assessed using the Kinect head tracker (Microsoft Corp), placed in front of each participant. The JPE was expressed in constant (CE), absolute (AE) and variable errors (VE). Multilevel linear models evaluated main and interaction effects of vision, movement direction, cervical region and sex. Slightly larger JPEs have been found in the UCS. Vision showed no effect on any outcome variable. No effect exceeded typical measurement errors reported for the Kinect head tracker. This study showed, that JPEs after pro-retraction movements of the head and neck may differ for UCS and LCS. The differences were small and not beyond measurement error reported for the Kinect.

ICF mobility and self-care goals of children in inpatient rehabilitation.

AIM: To develop a detailed priority list of family-centred rehabilitation goals on the activity level within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) chapters d4 'Mobility' and d5 'Self-care' in a paediatric population with a broad range of health conditions. METHOD: Twenty-two months after implementing a systematic, family-centred, goal-setting process, the rehabilitation goals of 212 inpatients were retrospectively allocated to the most detailed level of ICF categories by two independent researchers. The overall frequencies of these goals were calculated and stratified by health condition, functional independence, and age. RESULTS: Ninety-three females and 119 males were included in the study (mean age 10y 9mo, SD 4y 5mo, range 2y 1mo-21y 5mo). The five most frequent rehabilitation goals were ICF codes d4500 'Walking short distances' (11%), d4200 'Transferring oneself while sitting' (9%), d5400 'Putting on clothes' (7%), d451 'Going up and down stairs' (6%), and d4153 'Maintaining a sitting position' (5%). These top goals varied in the subgroups with regard to the underlying health condition, functional independence, and age. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study are not generalizable due to the large heterogeneity in priorities. However, they can be used to incorporate families' needs into future research designs and the development of new technologies. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Walking short distances is the most frequent mobility/self-care goal of paediatric rehabilitation. The top goals depend on health condition, functional independence, and age. Priorities vary considerably between children undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation goals need to be assessed individually for each child.

Concurrent validity and reliability of a mobile tracking technology to measure angular and linear movements of the neck.

The neck can be moved in six degrees of freedom. Current 3D-optoelectronic motion-capture systems capable of measuring these movements are inappropriate for use in clinical practice because they are stationary, expensive and time-consuming. We therefore developed a less complex 3D-tracking technology based on Steam®VR to measure six degrees of freedom in a clinical setting. The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of this system. The developed prototype consists of two infrared-emitting lighthouses and sensors, mounted on the participant's helmet and trunk belt, to detect the orientation of the head and trunk. The system was evaluated by means of an infrared light-reflecting marker tracking system. Twenty healthy participants, equipped with these sensors and markers, performed thirteen neck movement tasks. Linear and angular movements were measured. These tasks were repeated after six to eight days to assess test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed by the root mean square error, and reliability with generalizability theory. With an average root mean square error between 1.2 and 2.0° in angular and 0.4-0.5 cm in linear movements, the prototype was shown to precisely track these movements. Reliability of the prototype and the reference system was comparable for all tasks. A high contribution of participant's variability to the observed variance was generally detected, with the exception of joint repositioning error and upper cervical flexion. The reliability was task-specific and did not differ between the systems. The prototype system was shown to be valid, although the reliability of the repositioning and upper cervical flexion tests needs to be reconsidered.

Measuring lumbar reposition accuracy in patients with unspecific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) show a greater lumbar reposition error (RE) than healthy controls. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies on lumbar RE in patients with NSCLBP present conflicting results. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature were performed to evaluate differences in RE between patients with NSCLBP and healthy controls. Data on absolute error, constant error (CE), and variable error were extracted and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated. For the CE flexion pattern and active extension pattern, subgroups of patients with NSCLBP were analyzed. Results of homogeneous studies were pooled. Measurement protocols and study outcomes were compared. The quality of reporting and the authors' appraisal of risk of bias were investigated. RESULTS: The original search revealed 178 records of which 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies showed that patients with NSCLBP produced a significantly larger absolute error (ES, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.13-1.49) and variable error (ES, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.05-1.09) compared with controls. CE is direction specific in flexion and active extension pattern subgroups of patients with NSCLBP (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.3) and ES, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.65, respectively). The quality of reporting and the authors' appraisal of risk of bias varied considerably. The applied test procedures and instrumentation varied between the studies, which hampered the comparability of studies. CONCLUSION: Although patients with NSCLBP seemed to produce a larger lumbar RE compared with healthy controls, study limitations render firm conclusions unsafe. Future studies should pay closer attention to power, precision, and reliability of the measurement approach, definition of outcome measures, and patient selection. We recommend a large, well-powered, prospective randomized control study that uses a standardized measurement approach and definitions for absolute error, CE, and variable error to address the hypothesis that proprioception may be impaired with CLBP.

Determination of thoracic and lumbar spinal processes by their percentage position between C7 and the PSIS level.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurements of spinal movement require reliable determination of anatomical landmarks. Current methods of identifying these are not sufficiently reliable or valid for this purpose. A reliable and convenient method of placing markers on selected vertebra is needed to compare measurements between different testers, subjects and sessions. FINDINGS: Two testers palpated T4, T7, T10, L1 and L4 spinal processes according to established criteria. They measured the position of spinal processes between C7 and the Posterior Superior Iliac Spine (PSIS) at the Pelvis independently using a flexible ruler placed on the spine. Subjects with a wide range of body heights but without visible spinal deformities were recruited for measurements. Reliability was calculated using absolute and relative values. Mean percentage position and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated using the mean of both testers' measurement for all subjects.Twenty-two subjects participated. The mean distance between C7 and the PSIS level was 50.9 cm (SD: 3.5 cm). Relative reliability for all spinal processes was almost perfect (ICC: > 0.9). Absolute reliability values showed high agreement between testers. Percentage position of T4 was found to be situated 21% along the distance between C7 and the PSIS level, T7 at 39%, T10 at 54.1%, L1 at 70.9% and L4 at 86.1% accordingly. 95% Confidence intervals around mean percentage positions had a maximum at L1 with 2.8% range from upper to lower limit. CONCLUSIONS: The distance of three thoracic and two lumbar spinal processes can be reliably and accurately measured by independent testers, using a flexible ruler. Percentage positions between C7 and PSIS level correspond to spinal processes for subjects without visible deformities in the sagittal and frontal plane.