A range-of-motion test is a test that is conducted on a patient's joint to measure the patient's ability to move the tested joint. A health care provider commonly performs range-of-motion testing following surgery to a patient's joint and during the post-operative therapy period to measure and track a patient's recovery. Additionally, it is common for a provider to perform range-of-motion testing on a patient's joint when that joint is affected by a disease, such as arthritis, to assess and monitor the disease's effect on the joint.
Traditionally, a provider performs range-of-motion testing in-person at the provider's facility, such as a hospital or clinic. The provider performs the range-of-motion test with a mechanical or digital instrument such as a goniometer or an inclinometer. Range-of-motion testing with instruments such as a goniometer or an inclinometer generally requires in-person testing because the provider must hold the instrument on or next to the patient's joint being measured.
Where considered appropriate, reference numerals may be repeated among the drawings to indicate corresponding or analogous elements. Moreover, some of the blocks depicted in the drawings may be combined into a single function.
In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. However, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the embodiments of the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the present invention.
Conventionally, a range-of-motion test may be administered by a health care provider, typically at the provider's facility, and requires the use of specialized equipment or tools. Conventional methods of administering range-of-motion tests require at least one party, typically the patient, to travel to the other party's location. Furthermore, the provider must subjectively determine if the test was executed properly and, therefore, whether the measured results are an accurate reflection of the patient's range of motion.
Given these problems, patients and providers responsible for administering range-of-motion testing on patients would benefit from a system that allows for remote testing, with the provider receiving substantially real-time feedback of the test's performance. Such benefits may include removing the burden of traveling to a health care provider's location to have a range-of-motion test administered in, which optimizes the patient's and health care provider's time, and having a computer system determine the test's satisfactory completion, which removes the health care provider's subjectivity from the testing process.
Reference is now made to
In this example, user device 30 communicates with provider device 50 through network 40, which may be any network that allows for communications between electronic devices. Although network 40 is depicted as a singular network, the network may comprise more than one network. For example, network 40 may be any type of communications network, including a public or private telephone (e.g., cellular, public switched, etc.) network and/or a computer network, such as a WAN (wide area network), MAN (metropolitan area network), or LAN (local area network) or the Internet or an intranet. Communications to and from devices 30, 50 may be via transmission protocols that are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Reference is now made to
Range-of-motion initializer 221 determines and sets up the range-of-motion test to be performed. By way of example, range-of-motion initializer 221 may receive instructions, including range-of-motion test link 241, from provider device 50. After the user receives and clicks on range-of-motion test link 241, range-of-motion initializer 221 begins setting up the range-of-motion test and, when indicated, commences the test. Range-of-motion test initializer 221 transmits range-of-motion test instructions 211 to user device 30's display 210. For example, range-of-motion initializer 221 may provide user 20 instructions on preparing for the test (e.g., how to hold user device 30 for the test), options for selecting certain types of range-of-motion tests (e.g., user 20 may choose an extension-flexion test, a pronation-supination test, or a radial-ulnar deviation test), and/or options for selecting the right/left hand of user 20. Range-of-motion initializer 221 determines that the range-of-motion test is set-up and then transmits an indication to user device 30's display 210 that the range-of-motion test should commence.
Range-of-motion tester 222 conducts the range-of-motion test. During the test, user device 30's sensors 230 continuously output sensor data 231 to range-of-motion tester 222. Range-of-motion tester 222 then transmits an indication 212 of performance of the test to user device 30's display 210. Additionally, range-of-motion tester 222 outputs range-of-motion test data 242 to provider device 50 through user device 30's transceiver 240. Range-of-motion test data 242 may include raw sensor data, processed data such as data indicating the test being performed, calculated range-of-motion test measurements, and/or data providing user device 30's calculated position in three-dimensional space.
Reference is now made to
Range-of-motion test determiner 321 determines the range-of-motion test to be performed. By way of example, range-of-motion test determiner 321 may receive inputs 351 from provider 60. Based upon these inputs 351, range-of-motion test determiner 321 determines instructions, including range-of-motion test link 241, to transmit to user device 30.
Range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 monitors the performance of the range-of-motion test and analyzes the range-of-motion test data to determine the quality of the test. Range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 receives a substantially real-time and continuous stream of range-of-motion test data 242 and then transmits performance data 311 to provider device 50's display 310 in real-time for observation by provider 60. Performance data 311 may include the type of test being conducted, range-of-motion test data, and/or real-time three-dimensional images of user device 30 as it is being manipulated during the range-of-motion test. Despite user 20's remote location, provider 60 is shown a substantially real-time and continuous display of the device and testing data. Depending on the type of data being transmitted from user device 30 to provider device 50, range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 may be responsible for processing user device 30's raw sensor data, data that indicate the test being performed, calculated range-of-motion test measurements, and/or user device 30's calculated three-dimensional position data.
Range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 also analyzes range-of-motion test data 242 to determine the quality of the test, i.e., if it was satisfactory, which may be based on many factors. These factors may be programmed into range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 such that range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 produces a result for the range-of-motion test (e.g., “Good” or “Bad) without provider 60's intervention. Beneficially, provider 60's subjectivity in determining whether a test was satisfactory may be removed from the testing process. Other embodiments, however, may include accessing the judgment of provider 60.
Range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 may use one or more of the following parameters to determine if a range-of-motion test was satisfactory: user device 30's starting position, the number of times user 20 completes the required movements, user device 30's movement orientation, and/or user device 30's range of movement. Regarding user device 30's starting position, the range-of-motion test instructions may require user 20 to start with user device 30 in a particular position for the test to be adjudged “Good.” If this instruction is ignored, range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 may output a result that the range-of-motion test was “Bad.” For the number of times user 20 completes the required movements, the range-of-motion test instructions may direct user 20 to repeat a range-of-motion test multiple times to provide a more reliable measurement. If user 20 does not perform the minimum number of movements, range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 may output a result that the range-of-motion test was “Bad.” The frequency may be measured by half of the number of local optimum (i.e., maximum and minimum) of the measurement angle. An example of a lower bound to be set is 1.5.
With respect to user device 30's movement orientation, several sub-factors may be considered when determining whether user device 30's movement orientation is satisfactory: movement of the rotation axis, the correlation of angle measures, and the primary movement direction. More details regarding these sub-factors are provided below in discussing the measurement of the angles and axes. Regarding user device 30's range of movement, range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 may output a determination that the range-of-motion test was “Bad” if user device 30's range of movement was beyond a threshold establishing the normal range, which would indicate that other joints that were not being tested were being moved simultaneously with the tested joint.
At the conclusion of range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322's analysis, range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 will output results 312 (e.g., “Good” or “Bad”). Range-of-motion test analysis results 312 may be transmitted to provider device 50's display 310 and/or to provider device 50's transceiver 340 for transmission to user device 30. Range-of-motion test analysis results 312 may be transmitted prior to termination of the test if at any time during the test range-of-motion test monitor/analyzer 322 determines that the test is “Bad,” e.g., user 20 did not start device 30 in the correct position. After completion of the range-of-motion test, user device 30's processor 220 may automatically proceed on to another range-of-motion test assigned by provider 60 or, if provider 60 assigned user 20 only one test, the program could terminate. Additionally, processor 320 may transmit range-of-motion test instructions to user device 30 that instruct user 20 to re-perform the range-of-motion test. Instructions to re-perform the range-of-motion test may be sent automatically from provider device 50 or may be sent after the health care provider inputs a request into provider device 50.
The blocks shown in
Reference is now made to
In operation 410, user device 30 displays range-of-motion test instructions. By way of example, the range-of-motion test instructions may provide user 20 instructions on preparing for the test (e.g., how to hold user device 30 for the test), options for selecting certain types of range-of-motion tests (e.g., user 20 may choose an extension-flexion test, pronation-supination test, or a radial-ulnar deviation test), options for selecting the right/left hand of user 20, etc. After the range-of-motion test instructions have completed the set-up process for the range-of-motion test, user 20 may be prompted to commence the range-of-motion test, which is commenced in operation 415.
In operation 420, user 20 performs the assigned range-of-motion test with user device 30 such that user device 30's sensors 230 begin transmitting data indicating user device 30's movements during the range-of-motion testing. In operation 425, user device 30 provides a substantially real-time and continuous indication of the range-of-motion test performance to user device 30 and provider device 50. The substantially real-time and continuous indication of the range-of-motion test performance may include the type of test being conducted, the range-of-motion measured by user device 30, and/or a real-time three-dimensional image or depiction of the device as it is being manipulated during the range-of-motion test.
In operation 430, provider device 50 analyzes the substantially real-time range-of-motion test performance to determine if the range-of-motion test is being conducted satisfactorily. Alternatively, user device 30 may analyze the performance and transmit the analysis to provider device 50. As previously discussed, provider device 50 may use any or all of the following parameters to determine if the range-of-motion test was satisfactory: user device 30's starting position, the number of times user 20 completes the required movements, user device 30's movement orientation, and/or user device 30's range of movement.
In operation 435, the range-of-motion test is terminated. The range-of-motion test may be terminated by user 20, provider 60, automatically by user device 30, and/or automatically by provider device 50. In operation 440, the results of the range-of-motion test are displayed. As described above, the range-of-motion test results may be a simple “Good” or “Bad” indication or may be a more complex result that shows user 20 and/or provider 60 the precise indicators and/or attributes of the test that caused the test to be “Bad.”
Besides the operations shown in
The determination of the quality of the range-of-motion test will now be discussed. Reference is now made to
As discussed above, the range-of-motion test utilizes signals from user device 30's sensors 230, which may be MEMS sensors. While the range-of-motion test calculation may be performed in user device 30's processor 220 or provider device 50's processor 320, the following description assumes that the calculations are performed on user device 30 by processor 220. Processor 220 may produce the range-of-motion test values using sensors 230 and the quaternion, which is a four-element vector describing rotation in a three-dimension coordinate system. The quaternion may be described as follows:
q=[w,x,y,z]T=[cos(½θ),vx sin(½θ),vy sin(½θ),vz sin(½θ)].
Intuitively, the quaternion may be thought of as describing a clockwise rotation of angle θ around a unit axis v=[vx, vy, vz] represented in the global reference frame.
The processor may also produce a rotation matrix that describes the body frame orientation relative to the global reference frame. The rotation matrix may be derived from the quaternion by:
The rotation matrix from one vector a to another vector b may be computed as follows. The axis u around which the rotation is made is the normalized cross product of a and b:
The angle θ of the rotation is the angle between a and b, which is given by:
Thus the matrix of a rotation by angle θ about the axis u in the direction of u is:
Reference is now made to
High-frequency signals of the orientation of user device 30 are received throughout the test. Each signal may be regarded as a new ending orientation, and is compared with a common starting orientation where [xb, yb, zb] is the same as [xm, ym, zm], and arrive at a set of continuous angle measures. Given an ending orientation, the motion can be decomposed into first a rotation of angle A1 around ym, then some other types of rotation to arrive at the ending orientation. The angle A1 is defined as the angle of extension-flexion, as the extension-flexion movement is a rotation around ym. However, different rotation assumptions generally lead to different movement decomposition, resulting in slightly different rotation angles. The decomposition method used in this application is described as follows.
The following simplifying assumption of the wrist motion is made as shown in
zm′=zbRT,cos A1=zmTzm′,
assuming zm, zm′, and zb are unit vectors. Angle A1 is further assigned to be positive if the projection of zm′ onto xm is positive, and negative otherwise.
During testing, subjects may perform the desired movement multiple times. The angle A1 is tracked throughout the test by the orientation of user device 30 at each sample time point to identify local minima and maxima. The range of movement is measured as the difference between successive local minima and maxima. Various summary statistics of the sequence of movements may be obtained; an embodiment of the present invention reports the median range of movement of each test.
Range-of-motion tests other than extension-flexion may be performed. In a radial-ulnar deviation test, radial deviation is the movement of bending the wrist to the thumb side, and ulnar deviation is the movement of bending the wrist towards the little finger side. The radial-ulnar deviation movement is a rotation around the zm axis rather than the ym axis. In a supination-pronation test, pronation describes the movement of rotating the palm towards the trunk of the body, and supination describes the movement of rotating the palm away from the trunk of the body. The supination-pronation movement is a rotation around the xm axis rather than the ym or zm axes. However, when evaluating the supination-pronation movement, the neutral position occurs when the hand is perpendicular to the ground plane with the palm facing the trunk of the body. Thus, 90° are added to the clockwise angle measure and subtracted from the counter-clockwise measure to determine the movement range.
Quality control (determination of a Good or Bad test) was discussed above and focused on four parameters: starting position, the number of times user 20 completes the required movements, user device 30's movement orientation, and user device 30's range of movement. Given the reference frames shown in
Regarding correlation of angle measures, because the desired movement is a rotation around one of the body frame axes, the movement of the other two body frame axes should be highly correlated. Using extension-flexion movement as an example, zb and xb should move together. Thus, the correlation between the zm-zb angle and the zm-xb angle is monitored, and the subject is notified if the correlation drops below a certain threshold. This criterion identifies cases in which the test is extension-flexion while the subject primarily performed radial-ulnar deviation. A similar approach applies to the other two types of tests.
The primary movement direction is measured to determine how much it deviates from the desired direction. In the extension-flexion test, the primary movement direction is defined as follows: project the trace of the top of zb onto the xm-ym plane, and the primary component direction, which may be measured by the regression coefficient because the projections are in a two-dimensional space, is the primary movement direction. In an ideal extension-flexion test, the primary direction will align well with the xm direction. The angle between the primary movement direction and the xm vector is then measured, and the test is determined to be “Bad” if the angle is larger than a certain threshold. An extreme example that will pass the other two orientation criteria but not this one occurs as follows: the subject turns the device in his or her palm after the test begins, so that the top of the device is aligned with the subject's four fingers, then the subject performs a supination-pronation test instead of the extension-flexion test. Similar measurements are derived for the other two tests: in the supination-pronation test, zb is also projected onto the xm-ym plane, and the primary movement direction should align with ym. In the radial-ulnar deviation test, xb is projected onto the ym-zm plane, and the primary movement direction should align with ym.
Reference is now made to
In
When ready, the subject clicks on the “Next” button, as indicated by the new screen displayed on the subject side of
Accordingly, a remote range-of-motion test is provided that beneficially gives a health care provider real-time feedback of the test's performance and a three-dimensional view of a user's device during the test's performance. Additionally, the user/subject may perform the range-of-motion test remotely without having the burden of having to travel to the health care provider's location.
Aspects of the present invention may be embodied in the form of a system, a computer program product, or a method. Similarly, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as hardware, software or a combination of both. Aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a computer program product saved on one or more computer-readable media in the form of computer-readable program code embodied thereon.
The computer-readable medium may be a computer-readable storage medium or a computer-readable signal medium. A computer-readable storage medium may be, for example, an electronic, optical, magnetic, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any combination thereof.
A computer-readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer-readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electromagnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer-readable signal medium may be any computer-readable medium that is not a computer-readable storage medium and that may communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Computer program code in embodiments of the present invention may be written in any suitable programming language. The program code may execute on a single computer, or on a plurality of computers. The computer may include a processing unit in communication with a computer-usable medium, where the computer-usable medium contains a set of instructions, and where the processing unit is designed to carry out the set of instructions.
The above discussion is meant to be illustrative of the principles and various embodiments of the present invention. Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. It is intended that the following claims be interpreted to embrace all such variations and modifications.
This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/470,174, filed on Mar. 10, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7602301 | Stirling | Oct 2009 | B1 |
8954289 | Burton et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
20110201428 | Ferguson et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120022884 | Chillemi | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120075586 | Kirschen | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20140163426 | Alberts et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140257833 | Williams | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150133820 | Zohar et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150142374 | Shibuya | May 2015 | A1 |
20150309563 | Connor | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160270996 | Tong | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160338621 | Kanchan et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170000386 | Salamatian | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170007167 | Kostic | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170132789 | Deitz | May 2017 | A1 |
20190298253 | Hal | Oct 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2008-067607 | Jun 2008 | WO |
2014040023 | Mar 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, PCT/2018/021763, dated Jun. 18, 2018. |
Wang Lee et al., “A Smartphone-Centric System for the Range of Motion Assessment in Stroke Patients,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 18(6), pp. 1839-1847 (Nov. 2014). |
Seung Shin et al., “Within-day reliability of shoulder range of motion measurement with a smartphone,” Manual Therapy, vol. 17(4), pp. 298-304 (Aug. 2012). |
Giuseppe Matera et al., “The New Smartphone Application for Wrist Rehabilitation,” The Journal of Hand Surgery (Asian-Pacific Volume), vol. 21(1), pp. 2-7 (Feb. 2016). |
John Heukers, “A Smartphone-based Controller for Virtual Reality Applications,” Bachelor's Thesis, University of Amsterdam (Jun. 27, 2014), retrieved from the Internet on Aug. 19, 2020: https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/bredeweg/pdf/BSc/20132014/Heukers.pdf. |
Extended European Search Report (supplementary European search report and European search opinion) dated Jul. 20, 2020, in EP Application No. 18764974.4. |
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC for application No. EP 18764974.4, dated Mar. 12, 2021. |
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC for Application No. 18764974.4, dated Aug. 6, 2021. |
Ongvisatepaiboon, Kanmanus et al., “Smartphone-based Tele-Rehabilitation System for Frozen Shoulder Using a Machine Learning Approach,” 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, pp. 811-815. |
Duffy, Jill, “10 Apps That Are Changing Healthcare,” PC Magazine, Feb. 11, 2015. |
Pourahmadi, Mohammad et al., “Reliability and concurrent validity of a new iPhone goniometric application for measuring active wrist range of motion: a cross-sectional study in asymptomatic subjects,” 230 J. Anatomy 484-495 (2017). |
Kim, T. et al., “A study on the measurement of wrist motion range using the iPhone 4 gyroscope application,” 73(2) Ann. Plast. Surg. 215-18 (Aug. 2014) (Abstract only). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180256077 A1 | Sep 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62470174 | Mar 2017 | US |