A Comparison of Elbow Range of Motion Measurements: Smartphone-Based Digital Photography Versus Goniometric Measurements.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to validate elbow flexion and extension measured from smartphone photography obtained by participants and compared them with photographs obtained by surgeons and goniometric measurements. METHODS We enrolled 32 participants with a total of 64 elbows, aged 25 to 68 years. Participants obtained smartphone photographs of full elbow flexion and extension. Then surgeons obtained the same photographs and goniometric measurement of elbow range of motion (ROM). We measured ROM from the photographs using Adobe Photoshop and calculated average ROM. Comparisons of manual goniometer versus digital measurements, participant versus surgeon photograph measurements, and interobserver measurements were statistically analyzed. RESULTS Average ROM measured by manual goniometer and digital photographs was 0° to 129° (range, 0° to 140°) and 0° to 129° (range, 0° to 145°), respectively. The goniometer versus digital measurements interclass correlation was 0.828 (L) and 0.740 (R). Pearson coefficient was 0.845 (L) and 0.757 (R). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that 30 of 32 digital measurements (L) and 31 of 32 measurements (R) were within the 95% confidence interval. Participant-obtained photographs compared with researcher's photographs interclass correlation was 0.955 (L) and 0.941 (R), with a Pearson coefficient of 0.962 (L) and 0.957 (R), respectively. Reviewing interobserver reliability, concordance coefficients were 0.793 (L) and 0.767 (R) and Pearson coefficients were 0.811 (L) and 0.780 (R). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that 28 of 32 digital measurements (L) and 26 of 32 measurements (R) were within the 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS Measuring elbow ROM using smartphone digital photography is valid and reliable. Participants were able to obtain accurate photographs and the measurements based on these photographs show no statistical difference from those taken by surgeons or goniometric measurement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE This study validates using smartphone photography for measuring elbow ROM by laymen in a remote setting. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic II.

[1]  A. Alexander,et al.  Mason Type II Radial Head Fractures: Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment , 1992, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[2]  M Allgöwer,et al.  Intercondylar fractures of the humerus. An operative approach. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  D. Altman,et al.  Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading , 1995, The Lancet.

[4]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[5]  S. Frostick,et al.  Development and validation of an elbow score. , 2004, Rheumatology.

[6]  Johan Bellemans,et al.  Are clinical photographs appropriate to determine the maximal range of motion of the knee? , 2010, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[7]  Edward J. Harvey,et al.  The smartphone inclinometer: A new tool to determine elbow range of motion? , 2018, European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.

[8]  S. O’Driscoll,et al.  Validation of a photography-based goniometry method for measuring joint range of motion. , 2012, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[9]  Emiel van Trijffel,et al.  Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological range of motion of upper extremity joints is better if instruments are used: a systematic review. , 2010, Journal of physiotherapy.

[10]  Per Egil Kummervold,et al.  Electronic patient-provider communication: Will it offset office visits and telephone consultations in primary care? , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[11]  J. C. Flynn,et al.  Blind pinning of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Sixteen years' experience with long-term follow-up. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  P. Pellicci,et al.  Total elbow replacement. , 1980, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume.

[13]  S. Azen,et al.  Reliability of goniometric measurements. , 1978, Physical therapy.

[14]  Tony Delamothe,et al.  What next for electronic communication and health care? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  J. Wickstrom,et al.  Dislocation of the Elbow: A Retrospective Study of 115 Patients , 1977, Southern medical journal.

[16]  S. Desale,et al.  Viability of Hand and Wrist Photogoniometry , 2018, Hand.

[17]  Nicola Hagemeister,et al.  Does malpositioning of the arm influence radiographic range of motion measurement? , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Clinical measurement of range of motion. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[19]  Neviaser Js,et al.  Dislocation of the elbow: a retrospective study of 115 patients. , 1977 .

[20]  B. Morrey.  5 – Functional Evaluation of the Elbow , 2018 .

[21]  A. Armstrong,et al.  Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. , 1998, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[22]  Ewald Fc,et al.  Total elbow replacement. , 1975 .

[23]  J M Rothstein,et al.  Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Shoulder measurements. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[24]  B. Morrey,et al.  Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  Scott W Wolfe,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of three different techniques for manual goniometry for wrist motion: a cadaveric study. , 2009, The Journal of hand surgery.

[26]  A. Daluiski.  Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method , 2012 .