Accelerometers can correctly count orthopaedic patients' early post‐operative steps while using walking aids
2025

Using Accelerometers to Count Steps After Surgery

Sample size: 20 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Spiros Tsamassiotis, Michael Schwarze, Philipp Gehring, Roman F. Karkosch, Lars‐René Tücking, Ann‐Kathrin Einfeldt, Eike Jakubowitz

Primary Institution: Hannover Medical School

Hypothesis

Only accelerometers can accurately determine the number of steps taken by orthopaedic patients in the early post-operative phase.

Conclusion

Commercial wearables can only accurately count steps under specific conditions in the early post-operative period, while accelerometers appear suitable for this purpose.

Supporting Evidence

  • Accelerometers showed lower relative error compared to other wearables.
  • The best sensor position for accuracy was found to be the ankle.
  • Commercial wearables performed poorly at slow walking speeds.
  • Only the AX6 and Fitbit provided acceptable measurements with walking aids.
  • Participants walked at varying speeds to simulate post-operative conditions.
  • Visual and video counting was used as the gold standard for comparison.
  • Technical issues affected data collection for some participants.
  • Step counting accuracy is crucial for monitoring rehabilitation progress.

Takeaway

This study shows that special devices called accelerometers can count how many steps patients take after surgery, which helps doctors see how well they are recovering.

Methodology

The study involved 20 healthy subjects using various walking aids and wearables to measure step counts, comparing results to visual and video counting.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the use of healthy subjects and the inability to control for all variables during walking.

Limitations

The study had a small sample size and involved healthy subjects rather than actual post-operative patients.

Participant Demographics

20 medical students, 7 females and 13 males, average age 25.1 years.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/jeo2.70134

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication