Acta Scientific Orthopaedics (ISSN: 2581-8635)

Research Article Volume 6 Issue 7

Use of Inertial Measurement Unit to Assess Knee Kinematics During Activities of Daily Living and Sports-Related Activities: A Narrative Review

Abdulraouf Hassan Alsolmi and Ahmad Hamed Alhamed*

Rehabilitation Department, King Abdulaziz Medical city, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author: Ahmad Hamed Alhamed, Rehabilitation Department, King Abdulaziz Medical city, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Received: May 02, 2023; Published: June 27, 2023


Background: Aberrant knee kinematics are often considered as risk factors for knee injuries, therefore, knee kinematics measurement is essential to correct and prevent knee injuries. As optoelectronic systems are limited to laboratory-setting, inertial sensors units (IMU) appear to be suitable tools for unrestrained joint kinematics measurement.

Objectives: Explore the literature on the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of IMU for measuring knee kinematics, and the IMU application as outcome measures and feedback tools following knee injuries and/or surgeries.

Major findings: TTwelve articles were included. Seven studies looked at the IMU validity for measuring knee kinematics in healthy participants, one study included individuals with knee disorders. Knee sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane movements were investigated during different activities. Correlations between IMU and standard reference systems ranging from 0.4 to 1. One study reported excellent test-retest reliability of IMU during single leg squatting and landing for knee rotation and valgus (ICC > 0.95). Three studies employed IMUs as outcome measures after knee arthroplasty, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and rehabilitation, finding insignificant differences between comparators (P > 0.05). One study used IMU as a feedback tool to increase knee angle to reduce ACL risk factors and found significant improvement after the feedback (MD 16.2; 95% CI 11.38 to 21.02).

Conclusion: IMU is valid to measure knee kinematics in healthy individuals. The reliability of IMU knee measurements is still unknown. IMU cannot yet be recommended for use as outcome measures after knee injuries and/or surgeries. Insufficient evidence support IMU as a feedback tool.

Keywords:Knee Joint; Kinematics; Inertial Sensors; Ambulatory Monitoring; Motion Analysis


  1. Hootman J., et al. “Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injuries among sedentary and physically active adults”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 5 (2002): 838-844.
  2. Prodromos C., et al. “A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen”. Arthroscopy 12 (2007): 1320-1325.
  3. Frank C and Jackson D. “The science of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 10 (1997): 1556-1576.
  4. Myles C., et al. “Knee joint functional range of movement prior to and following total knee arthroplasty measured using flexible electro goniometry”. Gait Posture1 (2002): 46-54.
  5. Hawker G., et al. “Health-related quality of life after knee replacement”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 2 (1998): 163-173.
  6. Heck D., et al. “Patient outcomes after knee replacement”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 356 (1998): 93-110.
  7. Dowling A., et al. “Inertial sensor-based feedback can reduce key risk metrics for anterior cruciate ligament injury during jump landings”. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 5 (2012): 1075-1083.
  8. Gao B and Zheng N. “Alterations in three-dimensional joint kinematics of anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and -reconstructed knees during walking”. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 3 (2010): 222-229.
  9. Neal B., et al. “Runners with patellofemoral pain have altered biomechanics which targeted interventions can modify: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Gait Posture 45 (2016): 69-82.
  10. Vorro J., et al. “Kinematic measures during a clinical diagnostic technique for human neck disorder: inter- and intraexaminer comparisons”. BioMed Research International 2013 (2013): 950719.
  11. Zhang J., et al. “Concurrent validation of Xsens MVN measurement of lower limb joint angular kinematics”. Physiological Measurement 8 (2013): N63- N9.
  12. Protopapadaki A., et al. “Hip, knee, ankle kinematics and kinetics during stair ascent and descent in healthy young individuals”. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 2 (2007): 203-210.
  13. Favre J., et al. “Ambulatory measurement of 3D knee joint angle”. Journal of Biomechanics 5 (2008): 1029-1035.
  14. Fong D and Chan Y. “The use of wearable inertial motion sensors in human lower limb biomechanics studies: a systematic review”. Sensors (Basel)12 (2010): 11556-11565.
  15. Palermo E., et al. “Experimental evaluation of indoor magnetic distortion effects on gait analysis performed with wearable inertial sensors”. Physiological Measurement 3 (2014): 399-415.
  16. Shull P., et al. “Quantified self and human movement: a review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention”. Gait Posture1 (2014): 11-19.
  17. Takeda R., et al. “Gait posture estimation using wearable acceleration and gyro sensors”. Journal of Biomechanics 15 (2009): 2486-2494.
  18. Cooper G., et al. “Inertial sensor-based knee flexion/extension angle estimation”. Journal of Biomechanics 16 (2009): 2678-2685.
  19. Bergmann J., et al. “A portable system for collecting anatomical joint angles during stair ascent: a comparison with an optical tracking device”. DynMed1 (2009).
  20. Watanabe T., et al. “Tests of wireless wearable sensor system in joint angle measurement of lower limbs”. Proceeding of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; Boston, IEEE (2011).
  21. Watanabe T., et al. “A preliminary test of measurement of joint angles and stride length with wireless inertial sensors for wearable gait evaluation system”. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience (2011): 975193.
  22. Palmer K., et al. “A randomised trial into the effect of an isolated hip abductor strengthening programme and a functional motor control programme on knee kinematics and hip muscle strength”. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 16 (2015): 105.
  23. Calliess , et al. “Clinical evaluation of a mobile sensor-based gait analysis method for outcome measurement after knee arthroplasty”. Sensors (Basel) 14.9 (2014): 15953-15964.
  24. Patterson M., et al. “An ambulatory method of identifying anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed gait patterns”. Sensors (Basel)1 (2014): 887-899.
  25. Cuesta-Vargas A., et al. “The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis”. Physical Therapy Reviews 6 (2010): 462-473.
  26. Armitage P and Berry G. “Statistical methods in medical research”. 3rd Oxford; Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications (1994).
  27. Schulze M., et al. “Development and clinical validation of an unobtrusive ambulatory knee function monitoring system with inertial 9DoF sensors”. Proceeding of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicince and biology Society; San Diego, CA. IEEE (2012).
  28. Yamazaki J., et al. “Differences in kinematics of single leg squatting between anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients and healthy controls”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1 (2010): 56-63.
  29. Mizner R., et al. “Muscle strength in the lower extremity does not predict postinstruction improvements in the landing patterns of female athletes”. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 6 (2008): 353-361.
  30. Portney LG and Watkins MP. “Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice”. 3rd Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company (2015).


Citation: Abdulraouf Hassan Alsolmi and Ahmad Hamed Alhamed. “Use of Inertial Measurement Unit to Assess Knee Kinematics During Activities of Daily Living and Sports-Related Activities: A Narrative Review”.Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 6.7 (2023): 85-98.


Copyright: © 2023 Abdulraouf Hassan Alsolmi and Ahmad Hamed Alhamed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Acceptance rate33%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is May 30, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US