Kinematics and temporospatial parameters during gait from inertial motion capture in adults with and without HIV: A validity and reliability study

Abstract

Background: Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based motion capture systems are gaining popularity for gait analysis outside laboratories. It is important to determine the performance of such systems in specific patient populations. We aimed to validate and determine within-day reliability of an IMU system for measuring lower limb gait kinematics and temporal-spatial parameters (TSP) in people with and without HIV. Methods: Gait was recorded in eight adults with HIV (PLHIV) and eight HIV-seronegative participants (SNP), using IMUs and optical motion capture (OMC) simultaneously. Participants performed six gait trials. Fifteen TSP and 28 kinematic angles were extracted. Intraclass correlations (ICC), root-mean-square error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess concurrent validity of the IMU system (relative to OMC) separately in PLHIV and SNP. IMU reliability was assessed during within-session retest of trials. ICCs were used to assess relative reliability. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and percentage SEM were used to assess absolute reliability. Results: Between-system TSP differences demonstrated acceptable-to-excellent ICCs (0.71-0.99), except for double support time and temporophasic parameters (< 0.60). All TSP demonstrated good mean absolute percentage errors (≤7.40%). For kinematics, ICCs were acceptable to excellent (0.75-1.00) for all but three range of motion (ROM) and four discrete angles. RMSE and bias were 0.0°-4.7° for all but two ROM and 10 discrete angles. In both groups, TSP reliability was acceptable to excellent for relative (ICC 0.75-0.99) (except for one temporal and two temporophasic parameters) and absolute (%SEM 1.58-15.23) values. Reliability trends of IMU-measured kinematics were similar between groups and demonstrated acceptable-to-excellent relative reliability (ICC 0.76-0.99) and clinically acceptable absolute reliability (SEM 0.7°-4.4°) for all but two and three discrete angles, respectively. Both systems demonstrated similar magnitude and directional trends for differences when comparing the gait of PLHIV with that of SNP. Conclusions: IMU-based gait analysis is valid and reliable when applied in PLHIV; demonstrating a sufficiently low precision error to be used for clinical interpretation (< 5° for most kinematics; < 20% for TSP). IMU-based gait analysis is sensitive to subtle gait deviations that may occur in PLHIV.