Malunion is a common complication of distal radius fracture and often causes a reduction in the range of motion. The measurement of the range of motion is a part of the process for evaluating the final motion after a malunion of a distal radius fracture is diagnosed. However, the amount of range of motion reduced due to the malunion often is calculated upon the assumption that the motion is equal in both forearms. Although this assumption has been questioned, not much work has been conducted which defines the difference in range of motion between the two forearms. In this work, a methodology has been proposed to measure the forearm range of motion using inertial measurement units. The motion was measured in both forearms of a control group. Afterwards, the motion was compared between both forearm sides; then, differences and relationships were drawn. Our results indicated that the forearm rotational motion is larger in the dominant forearm. Moreover, pronation and supination motions differ among the limbs, supination being always larger than pronation. In the dominant forearm, supination is much larger than pronation, while in the non-dominant their magnitudes are rather close. These results provide important data for a more accurate way to determine how the malunion of a fracture or another pathology affects the forearm motion.
KingstonB.Understanding joints. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, 2000.
2.
PalastangaNSoamesRFieldD.Anatomy and human movement: structure and function. 4th ed.Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002.
3.
WinterDA.Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ; Chichester: John Wiley [distributor], 2009.
4.
BooneDCAzenSP.Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects. J Bone Joint Surg1979; 61(5): 756–759.
5.
GünalIKöseNErdoganO, et al. Normal range of motion of the joints of the upper extremity in male subjects, with special reference to side. J Bone Joint Surg1996; 78(9): 1401–1404.
ParkMJLeeYBKimHG.Surgical correction for supination loss following malunited radial fractures. Acta Orthop Belg2012; 78(2): 175–182.
8.
PrommersbergerKJvan SchoonhovenJLanzUB.Outcome after corrective osteotomy for malunited fractures of the distal end of the radius. J Hand Surg2002; 27(1): 55–60. http://jhs.sagepub.com/content/27/1/55.short
ArmstrongADMacDermidJCChinchalkarS, et al. Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shoulder Elb Surg1998; 7(6): 573–580.
MorreyBFAskewLJChaoEYS. A biomechanical study of normal functional elbow motion. J Bone Joint Surg1981; 63(6): 872–877.
13.
PalmerAJWernerFWMurphyDJ, et al. Fuctional wrist motion. A biomechanical study. J Hand Surg1985; 10A(1): 8.
14.
RyuJCooneyWPAskewLJ, et al. Funtional ranges of motion of the wrist joint. J Hand Surg1991; 16A(3): 11.
15.
ShaabanHPereiraCWilliamsR, et al. The effect of elbow position on the range of supination and pronation of the forearm. J Hand Surg2008; 33(1): 38. http://jhs.sagepub.com/content/33/1/3.abstract
GiansantiDMacellariVMaccioniG, et al. Is it feasible to reconstruct body segment 3-D position and orientation using accelerometric data?IEEE T Bio-med Eng2003; 50(4): 476–483.
WashabaughEPKalyanaramanTAdamczykPG, et al. Validity and repeatability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait parameters. Gait Posture2017; 55: 87–93. www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost
PalermoERossiSMariniF, et al. Experimental evaluation of accuracy and repeatability of a novel body-to-sensor calibration procedure for inertial sensor-based gait analysis. Measurement2014(52): 145–155.
TeuflWMiezalMTaetzB, et al. Validity, test-retest reliability and long-term stability of magnetometer free inertial sensor based 3D joint kinematics. Sensors2018; 18(7): 1980. http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/7/1980
25.
TeuflWMiezalMTaetzB, et al. Validity of inertial sensor based 3D joint kinematics of static and dynamic sport and physiotherapy specific movements. PLOS ONE2019; 14(2): e0213064. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213064
26.
SersRForresterSMossE, et al. Validity of the perception neuron inertial motion capture system for upper body motion analysis. Measurement2020; 149: 107024.
27.
CuttiAGGiovanardiARocchiL, et al. Ambulatory measurement of shoulder and elbow kinematics through inertial and magnetic sensors. Med Biol Eng Comput2008; 46(2): 169–178.
MorrowMMBLowndesBFortuneE, et al. Validation of inertial measurement units for upper body kinematics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics2017; 33(3): 227–232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27918696
30.
WuGvan der HelmFCTVeegerHEJ, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human moint motion – part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech2005; 38(5): 981–992. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002192900400301X
31.
CampoloDFormicaDGuglielmelliE, et al. Kinematic analysis of the human wrist during pointing tasks. Exp Brain Res2010; 201(3): 561–573.
32.
PicernoPVieroVDonatiM, et al. Ambulatory assessment of shoulder abduction strength curve using a single wearable inertial sensor. J Rehabil Res Dev2015; 52(2): 171–180.
LaidigDMüllerPSeelT.Automatic anatomical calibration for IMU-based elbow angle measurement in disturbed magnetic fields. Curr Dir Biomed Eng2017; 3(2): 167–170.
35.
PicernoP.25 years of lower limb joint kinematics by using inertial and magnetic sensors: a review of methodological approaches. Gait Posture2017; 51: 239–246.
BeerFPSarubbiRGEisenbergER, et al. Vector mechanics for engineers: statics and dynamics. 6th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
45.
KuipersJB.Quaternions and rotation sequences. A primer with applications to orbits, aerospace, and virtual reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.
