The potential of inertial measurement units (IMUs) for ergonomics applications appears promising. However, previous IMUs validation studies have been incomplete regarding aspects of joints analysed, complexity of movements and duration of trials. The objective was to determine the technological error and biomechanical model differences between IMUs and an optoelectronic system and evaluate the effect of task complexity and duration. Whole-body kinematics from 12 participants was recorded simultaneously with a full-body Xsens system where an Optotrak cluster was fixed on every IMU. Short functional movements and long manual material handling tasks were performed and joint angles were compared between the two systems. The differences attributed to the biomechanical model showed significantly greater (P ≤ .001) RMSE than the technological error. RMSE was systematically higher (P ≤ .001) for the long complex task with a mean on all joints of 2.8° compared to 1.2° during short functional movements. Definition of local coordinate systems based on anatomical landmarks or single posture was the most influent difference between the two systems. Additionally, IMUs accuracy was affected by the complexity and duration of the tasks. Nevertheless, technological error remained under 5° RMSE during handling tasks, which shows potential to track workers during their daily labour.

No abstract

No abstract

Immediate biomechanical and functional effects of knee braces are often reported, however, the duration and type of knee brace treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remain unclear. The objective was to evaluate usage, comfort, pain, and knee adduction moment (KAM) of three knee braces each worn 3 months by patients. Twenty‐four patients with KOA were assigned in a randomized crossover trial a valgus three‐point bending system brace (V3P‐brace), an unloader brace with valgus and external rotation functions (VER‐brace) and a stabilizing brace used after ligament injuries (ACL‐brace). Functional questionnaires and gait assessment were carried out before and after each brace wear period of 3 months. A Friedman test was applied between brace wear diary recordings. Repeated measures analyses of variance contrasted the factors brace type (ACL, V3P, and VER), time (pre and post) and wear (without and with) on comfort, pain, function, and KAM. Brace usage was similar, but the V3P‐brace was slightly less worn. Discomfort was significantly lowered with the VER‐brace. All knee braces relieved pain and symptoms from 10% to 40%. KAM angular impulse was reduced with the three braces, but the VER‐brace obtained the lowest relative reduction of 9%. The interaction between time and wear indicated that part of the KAM reduction with brace wear was maintained post treatment. All three knee braces have great benefits for pain and function among the medial KOA population. The VER‐brace offers additional advantages on daily use, comfort and KAM, which could improve compliance to brace treatment.