The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

  • 제34권6호
  • /
  • Pages.283-291
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1229-0475(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-156X(eISSN)
대한물리치료학회 (The Korean Society of Physical Therapy)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability and Validity of Angle of Trunk Rotation Measurement Using Smartphone and 3D Printing Technology in Scoliosis

  • Geum-Dong, Shin (Department of Physical Therapy, Graduate School of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University) ;
  • Seong-gil, Kim (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Sunmoon University) ;
  • Kyoung, Kim (Department of Physical Therapy, Graduate School of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University)
  • 투고 : 2022.07.20
  • 심사 : 2022.11.01
  • 발행 : 2022.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the method of measuring the angle of the trunk rotation using a smartphone with 3D smartphone holder compared to a scoliometer, which is a measuring tool used as a method for diagnosing scoliosis in scoliosis patients. Methods: Angle of trunk rotation was measured in 21 subjects diagnosed with scoliosis. scoliometer measurement method, a smartphone measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder, a smartphone blind measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder, a smartphone measurement method without a smartphone holder, a smartphone blind measurement method without a smartphone holder, and a total of five measurement methods were repeated three times for comparison and analysis. Results: The smartphone measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder has excellent intra-rater reliability of angle of trunk rotation (Rater A; ICC3, 2≥0.993, Rater B; ICC3, 2≥0.992). The smartphone blind measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder has excellent inter-rater reliability of angle of trunk rotation (ICC2, 2≥0.968). The scoliometer measurement method had the highest validity (r=0.976) with the smartphone measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder, and the blind measurement method without a smartphone holder had the lowest validity (r=0.886). Conclusion: These findings, the angle of trunk rotation measured by the smartphone measurement method with a 3D smartphone holder in scoliosis patients showed high reliability and validity compared to the scoliometer measurement method.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Redding Gregory J. Early onset scoliosis: a pulmonary perspective. Spine Deformity. 2014;2(6):425-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.04.010
  2. Lee WJ, Lim CH. Effect of unstale surface lumbar stabilization exercise on trunk posture and balance ability in patients with scoliosis. J Kor Phys Ther. 2012;7(1):59-67. 
  3. Kim EJ. The Investigation of pain and spine shape in elementary school students. J Kor Phys Ther. 2014;9(1):115-23. 
  4. Savvides P, Gerdhem P, Grauers A et al. Self-experienced trunk appearance in individuals with and without idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(8):522-7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003308
  5. Kim JS, Lee S, Lim DH et al. The effects of short term schroth exercise on the cobb angle, angle of trunk rotation, cosmetic appearance, and quality of life in idiopathic scoliosis. J Kor Phys Ther. 2017;12(1):93-101. 
  6. Kim JC, Oh EJ. Effect of coordinative locomotor training on spine appearance and quality of life in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: single subject study. J Kor Phys Ther. 2021;16(3):89-97. 
  7. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):925-48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9
  8. Romano M, Mastrantonio M. Torsion bottle, a very simple, reliable, and cheap tool for a basic scoliosis screening. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018;13(1):4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-018-0150-6
  9. Yilmaz H, Zateri C, Ozkan AK et al. Prevalence of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in Turkey: an epidemiological study. Spine J. 2020;20(6):947-55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.01.008
  10. Jung JC, Park MC, Lee KH et al. The correlation between Walter Reed Visual Analogue Scale (WRVAS) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. J Kor Phys Ther. 2009;4(1):31-41. 
  11. Pepe M, Kocadal O, Iyigun A et al. Use of the smartphone for end vertebra selection in scoliosis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017;51(2):146-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.006
  12. Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient radiation exposure. Spine J. 2014;14(9):1984-90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.055
  13. Lee JH, Kim SY. Comparative effectiveness of schroth therapeutic exercise versus sling therapeutic exercise in flexibility, balance, spine angle and chest expansion in patient with scoliosis. J Kor Phys Ther. 2014;9(1):11-23. 
  14. Kim MS, Lee MH, Kim LH. The effects of stage-based training and core exercises on Cobb's angle and trunk length in scoliosis patients: a case study. J Kor Phys Ther. 2016;11(1):127-32. 
  15. Bunnell WP. An objective criterion for scoliosis screening. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(9):1381-7.  https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198466090-00010
  16. Amendt LE, Ause-Ellias KL, Eybers JL et al. Validity and reliability testing of the Scoliometer. Phys Ther. 1990;70:108-17.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/70.2.108
  17. Navarro IJ, Candotti CT, do Amaral MA et al. Validation of the measurement of the angle of trunk rotation in photogrammetry. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2020;43(1):50-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2019.05.005
  18. Kardous CA, Shaw PB. Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications. The J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;135(4):EL186-92.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4865269
  19. Nielsen. Mobile majority: us smartphone ownership tops 60% [Internet]. 2013 Jun [cited 2022 Jun 1]. Available from: https://www.nielsen.com/ko/insights/2013/mobile-majority-u-s-smartphone-ownership-tops-60/. 
  20. Laura Silver. Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the world, but not always equally [Internet]. 2019 Feb 5 [cited 2022 Jun 1]. Available from: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/616956/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/1597679/. 
  21. Umek A, Kos A. Validation of smartphone gyroscopes for mobile biofeedback applications. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2016;20(5):657-66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0946-4
  22. Yan Q, Dong H, Su J et al. A review of 3D printing technology for medical applications. Engineering. 2018;4(5):729-42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.07.021
  23. Na DJ. Current status and future prospects of 3D printing technology. Kosen. 2019. 
  24. Izatt MT, Bateman GR, Adam CJ. Evaluation of the iPhone with an acrylic sleeve versus the Scoliometer for rib hump measurement in scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2012;7(1):1-8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-1
  25. Franko OI, Bray C, Newton PO. Validation of a scoliometer smartphone app to assess scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(8):e72-5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31826bb109
  26. Harasymczuk P, Glowacki M, Wojtkow M. Reliability of a new smartphone accessory for scoliosis measurements. J Med Device. 2020;14(4):041005.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048373
  27. Driscoll M, Fortier-Tougas F, Labelle H et al. Evaluation of an apparatus to be combined with a smartphone for the early detection of spinal deformities. Scoliosis. 2014;9(1):1-5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-9-1
  28. Msallem B, Sharma N, Cao S et al. Evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed anatomical mandibular models using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ printing technology. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):817.  https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030817
  29. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  30. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359(9307):696-700.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9
  31. Murrell GA, Coonrad RW, Moorman 3rd CT et al. An assessment of the reliability of the Scoliometer. Spine. 1993;18(6):709-12.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199305000-00006
  32. Kuhlmann T, Garaizar P, Reips UD. Smartphone sensor accuracy varies from device to device in mobile research: the case of spatial orientation. Behav Res Methods. 2021;53:22-33. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01404-5