Evaluation of gait characteristics in subjects with locomotive syndrome using wearable gait sensors

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders Vol. 23; no. 1; p. 457
• Main Authors: Saito, Yuki, Ishida, Tomoya, Kataoka, Yoshiaki, Takeda, Ryo, Tadano, Shigeru, Suzuki, Teppei, Nakamura, Kentaro, Nakata, Akimi, Osuka, Satoshi, Yamada, Satoshi, Samukawa, Mina, Tohyama, Harukazu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 14.05.2022; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Aged; Biomechanical Phenomena; Data analysis; Gait; Gait analysis; Health aspects; Hip; Human locomotion; Humans; Kinematics; Knee; Laboratories; Locomotion; Locomotive syndrome; Motion analysis; Musculoskeletal diseases; Musculoskeletal system; Nursing care; Older adults; Older people; Physiological aspects; Public health; Sensors; Spatiotemporal parameters; Syndrome; Technology application; Variance analysis; Velocity; Walking; Walking Speed; Wearable Electronic Devices; Japan; United States > US; Locomotive syndrome; Wearable sensor; Spatiotemporal parameters; Kinematics; Motion analysis; Older adults; Gait analysis
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05411-9

Individuals with locomotive syndrome (LS) require nursing care services owing to problems with locomotion and the musculoskeletal system. Individuals with LS generally have a reduced walking speed compared with those without LS. However, differences in lower-limb kinematics and gait between individuals with and without LS are not fully understood. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of the gait kinematics of individuals with LS using wearable sensors. We assessed 125 participants (mean age 73.0 ± 6.7 years) who used a public health promotion facility. Based on the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25), these participants were grouped into the non-LS (GLFS-25 < 7), LS-stage 1 (GLFS-25 7-16), and LS-stage 2 (GLFS-25 ≥ 16) groups (larger GLFS-25 scores indicate worse locomotive ability). Spatiotemporal parameters and lower-limb kinematics during the 10-m walk test were analyzed by the "H-Gait system", which is a motion analysis system that was developed by the authors and is based on seven inertial sensors. The peak joint angles during the stance and swing phases, as well as the gait speed, cadence, and step length were compared among all groups. There were 69 participants in the non-LS group, 33 in the LS-stage 1 group, and 23 in the LS-stage 2 group. Compared with the non-LS group, the LS-stage 2 group showed significantly smaller peak angles of hip extension (9.5 ± 5.3° vs 4.2 ± 8.2°, P = 0.002), hip flexion (34.2 ± 8.8° vs 28.5 ± 9.5°, P = 0.026), and knee flexion (65.2 ± 18.7° vs 50.6 ± 18.5°, P = 0.005). The LS-stage 1 and LS-stage 2 groups had a significantly slower mean gait speed than the non-LS group (non-LS: 1.3 ± 0.2 m/s, LS-stage 1: 1.2 ± 0.2 m/s, LS-stage 2: 1.1 ± 0.2 m/s, P < 0.001). The LS-stage 2 group showed significantly different lower-limb kinematics compared with the non-LS group, including smaller peak angles of hip extension, hip flexion, and knee flexion. It would be useful to assess and improve these small peak joint angles during gait for individuals classified as LS-stage 2.