Suppr超能文献

三维比较静态和动态肩胛运动跟踪技术。

Three-dimensional comparison of static and dynamic scapular motion tracking techniques.

机构信息

Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo N2L 3G1, Canada.

Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo N2L 3G1, Canada.

出版信息

J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014 Feb;24(1):65-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.09.011. Epub 2013 Oct 9.

Abstract

The shoulder is complex and comprised of many moving parts. Accurately measuring shoulder rhythm is difficult. To classify shoulder rhythm and identify pathological movement, static measures have been the preferred method. However, dynamic measures are also used and can be less burdensome to obtain. The purpose of this paper was to determine how closely dynamic measures represent static measures using the same acromion marker cluster scapular tracking technique. Five shoulder angles were assessed for 24 participants using dynamic and static tracking techniques during humeral elevation in three planes (frontal, scapular, sagittal). ANOVAs were used to identify where significant differences existed for the factors of plane, elevation angle, and tracking technique (static, dynamic raising, dynamic lowering). All factors were significantly different for all shoulder angles (p<0.001), except for elevation plane in scapulothoracic protraction/retraction (p=0.955). Tracking techniques were influential (p<0.001), but the grouped mean differences fell below a clinically relevant 5° benchmark. There was large variation in mean differences of the techniques across individuals. While population averages are similar, individual static and dynamic shoulder assessments may be different. Caution should be taken when dynamic shoulder assessments are performed on individuals, as they may not reflect those obtained in static scapular motion tracking.

摘要

肩部结构复杂,由许多活动部件组成。准确测量肩部节律较为困难。为了对肩部节律进行分类并识别病理性运动,静态测量一直是首选方法。但是,也会使用动态测量,且其获取过程可能不那么繁琐。本文旨在确定使用相同的肩峰标记集群肩胛跟踪技术,动态测量与静态测量的接近程度。在三个平面(额状面、肩胛面和矢状面)中,对 24 名参与者进行了 5 个肩部角度的评估,分别使用动态和静态跟踪技术。使用方差分析确定在平面、提升角度和跟踪技术(静态、动态提升、动态降低)的因素中存在显著差异的位置。除了肩胛胸壁前伸/后缩的提升平面(p=0.955)外,所有因素对所有肩部角度均有显著差异(p<0.001)。跟踪技术有影响(p<0.001),但分组平均差异低于临床相关的 5°基准。各技术之间的平均差异个体差异较大。虽然人群平均值相似,但个体的静态和动态肩部评估可能不同。对个体进行动态肩部评估时应谨慎,因为其可能无法反映静态肩胛运动跟踪中获得的结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验