Repeatability and accuracy testing of a weight distribution platform and comparison to a pressure sensitive walkway to assess static weight distribution

Summary

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of measurements collected using a weight distribution platform and a pressure sensitive walkway using an inanimate object with known weight distribution.

Methods: A custom-built jig with a range of weights was applied in a random order. Measurements were collected on both devices and compared to each other and to the known weight distribution.

Results: Weight distribution platform and pressure sensitive walkway measurements were highly correlated to each other (Pearson’s correlation coefficient R = 0.98) and to actual weights (R = 0.99 for the weight distribution platform; 0.98 for the pressure sensitive walkway). Repeatability from day to day for both devices was greater than 0.99. For the weight distribution platform, the 95% confidence interval was ± 2.5% from the true percentage and ± 3.3% for the pressure sensitive walkway. The coefficient of variation (COV) was highest for both devices at the lightest weights (weight distribution platform 11.28%, pressure sensitive walkway 16.91%) and lowest with the heaviest weights (weight distribution platform 3.71%, pressure sensitive walkway 5.86%).

Conclusion: Both the weight distribution platform and the pressure sensitive walkway provided accurate and consistent measures of weight distribution with no significant difference between devices. The rounded standard error was three percent for the weight distribution platform, and four percent for the pressure sensitive walkway. The higher variability when measuring the smallest weight suggests less accuracy at lower weights with both devices.

Clinical significance: The weight distribution platform is a repeatable and accessible device to measure static weight distribution, and if proven the same in a clinical setting, it will be a valuable addition to current objective measures of limb use.

Keywords

Pressure sensitive walkway - static weight distribution - weight distribution platform - repeatability

• References

• 1 Sharkey M.. The challenges of assessing osteoarthritis and postoperative pain in dogs. AAPS J 2013; 15: 598-607.
• 2 Lascelles BDX., Roe SC., Smith E.. et al. Evaluation of a pressure walkway system for measurement of vertical limb forces in clinically normal dogs. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 1-6.
• 3 Seibert R., Marcellin-Little DJ., Roe SC.. et al. Comparison of body weight distribution, peak vertical force, and vertical impulse as measures of hip joint pain and efficacy of total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 443-447.
• 4 Tomas A., Marcellin-Little DJ., Roe SC.. et al. Relationship between mechanical thresholds and limb use in dogs with coxofemoral joint OA-associated pain and the modulating effects of pain alleviation from total hip replacement on mechanical thresholds. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 542-548.
• 5 Horstman CL., Conzemius MG., Evans R.. et al. Assessing the efficacy of perioperative oral carprofen after cranial cruciate surgery using noninvasive, objective pressure platform gait analysis. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 286-292.
• 6 Tomas A., Bledsoe D., Wall S.. et al. Initial evaluation of a canine stifle arthrotomy post-operative pain model. Vet J 2015; 204: 293-298.
• 7 Marsolais GS., Dvorak G., Conzemius MG.. Effects of postoperative rehabilitation on limb function after cranial cruciate ligament repair in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 220: 1-6.
• 8 Brookhart JM., Parmeggiani PL., Petersen WA.. et al. Postural stability in the dog. Am J Physiol 1965; 208: 1047-1057.
• 9 Hicks DA., Millis DL., Arnold GA.. et al. Comparison of weightbearing at a stance vs. trotting in dogs with rear limb lameness. Proceedings of the 32^nd Annual Conference of the Veterinary Orthopedic Society. 2005 March 5-12; Aspen, CO, USA: Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: A49
• 10 Kirkwood BR., Sterne JAC.. Essential Medical Statistics. Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Science; 2003: 364-365.