4.1 Article

Promoting endoscopists' health through cutting-edge motion analysis technology: Accuracy and precision of ergonomic motion tracking system for endoscopy suite (EMTES)

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1348-9585.12355

关键词

accuracy; endoscopist; motion tracking; musculoskeletal disorders; occlusion; precision

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology Agency [JPMJPF2007]
  2. Nitto Foundation [JOSE202100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An ergonomic motion tracking system for endoscopy suite (EMTES) was developed and found to be reliable in calculating occlusion, precision, and accuracy for upper and lower limb movements in endoscopists.
Objectives Endoscopists often suffer from musculoskeletal disorders due to posture-specific workloads imposed by precise maneuvering or long procedural duration. An ergonomic motion tracking system for endoscopy suite (EMTES) was developed using Azure Kinect sensors to evaluate the occlusion, accuracy, and precision, focusing mainly on upper and lower limb movements. Methods Three healthy male participants pointed the prescribed points for 5 s on the designated work envelopes and their coordinates were measured. The mean occlusion rate (%) of the 32 motion tracking landmarks, standard deviation (SD) of distance and orientation, and partial regression coefficient (beta) and R-2 model fit for accuracy were calculated using the time series of coordinates data of the upper/lower limb movements. Results The mean occlusion rate was 5.2 +/- 10.6% and 1.6 +/- 1.4% for upper and lower limb movements, respectively. Of the 32 landmarks, 28 (87.5%) had occlusion rates of 10% or less. The mean SDs of 4.2 mm for distance and 1.2 degrees for orientation were found. Most of the R-2 values were over 0.9. In the case of right upper/lower limb measurement for orientation, beta coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 1.36. Conclusion EMTES is reliable in calculating occlusion, precision, and accuracy for practical motion-tracking measurements in endoscopists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据