PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2321-0516
Original Article

Inclinometers and Apps Are Better than Goniometers, Measuring Knee Extension Range of Motion in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Patients: Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change for the Three Devices

Michail Pantouveris
1   Rehabilitation Department, Aspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar
,
Roula Kotsifaki
1   Rehabilitation Department, Aspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar
2   Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway
,
Rodney Whiteley
1   Rehabilitation Department, Aspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Knee extension range of motion (ROM) measurement is important in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. The main objective is to evaluate the reliability and the minimal detectable change (MDC) of three methods of measuring knee extension ROM in ACL patients. The three common goniometric devices were a universal goniometer, an inclinometer, and a smartphone app. During a single-visit, knee extension ROM was measured in both knees of 92 ACL-injured or -reconstructed patients by two testers blinded to the other's measures. Intrarater, interrater, and test–retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) were calculated. Intrarater ICC2,1 was excellent for the three devices ranging from 0.92 to 0.94, with the inclinometer yielding the best results (ICC2,1 = 0.94 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.91–0.96]). Interrater ICC2,1, however, varied from 0.36 to 0.80. The inclinometer and the smartphone app yielded similar results 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71–0.86) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70–0.86), respectively, whereas the universal goniometer was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.17–0.53). Test–retest ICC2,1 for the inclinometer was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84–0.93), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79–0.91) for the app, and 0.83 (95% CI:0.74–0.89) for the goniometer. The intrarater, interrater, and test–retest MDC95 values ranged from 2.0 to 3.5, 3.7 to 10.4, and 2.6 to 5.4 degrees, respectively. The goniometer was the least reliable. The inclinometer is the recommended device due to its highest ICC scores among the three devices and ease of use.

Keywords

ACL - reliability - universal goniometer - inclinometer - smartphone app

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. Januar 2023

Angenommen: 06. Mai 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07. Mai 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Mai 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Scholes C, Ektas N, Harrison-Brown M. et al. Persistent knee extension deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (08) 3172-3185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brosky Jr JA, Nitz AJ, Malone TR, Caborn DN, Rayens MK. Intrarater reliability of selected clinical outcome measures following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999; 29 (01) 39-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. FA Davis; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Piriyaprasarth P, Morris ME. Psychometric properties of measurement tools for quantifying knee joint position and movement: a systematic review. Knee 2007; 14 (01) 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Keogh JWL, Cox A, Anderson S. et al. Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: a systematic review. PLoS One 2019; 14 (05) e0215806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Milani P, Coccetta CA, Rabini A, Sciarra T, Massazza G, Ferriero G. Mobile smartphone applications for body position measurement in rehabilitation: a review of goniometric tools. PM R 2014; 6 (11) 1038-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Longoni L, Brunati R, Sale P, Casale R, Ronconi G, Ferriero G. Smartphone applications validated for joint angle measurement: a systematic review. Int J Rehabil Res 2019; 42 (01) 11-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hahn S, Kröger I, Willwacher S, Augat P. Reliability and validity varies among smartphone apps for range of motion measurements of the lower extremity: a systematic review. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2021; 66 (06) 537-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brosseau L, Balmer S, Tousignant M. et al. Intra- and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for measuring maximum active knee flexion and extension of patients with knee restrictions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (03) 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lenssen AF, van Dam EM, Crijns YH. et al. Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8 (01) 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mehta SP, Barker K, Bowman B, Galloway H, Oliashirazi N, Oliashirazi A. Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal detectable change for iPhone goniometer app in assessing knee range of motion. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (06) 577-584
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ockendon M, Gilbert RE. Validation of a novel smartphone accelerometer-based knee goniometer. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (04) 341-345
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pereira LC, Rwakabayiza S, Lécureux E, Jolles BM. Reliability of the knee smartphone-application goniometer in the acute orthopedic setting. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (03) 223-230
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rothstein JM, Miller PJ, Roettger RF. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Elbow and knee measurements. Phys Ther 1983; 63 (10) 1611-1615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Støve MP, Palsson TS, Hirata RP. Smartphone-based accelerometry is a valid tool for measuring dynamic changes in knee extension range of motion. Knee 2018; 25 (01) 66-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Verhaegen F, Ganseman Y, Arnout N, Vandenneucker H, Bellemans J. Are clinical photographs appropriate to determine the maximal range of motion of the knee?. Acta Orthop Belg 2010; 76 (06) 794-798
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Watkins MA, Riddle DL, Lamb RL, Personius WJ. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of knee range of motion obtained in a clinical setting. Phys Ther 1991; 71 (02) 90-96 , discussion 96–97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shelbourne KD, Gray T. Minimum 10-year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (03) 471-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hunnicutt JL, Xerogeanes JW, Tsai LC. et al. Terminal knee extension deficit and female sex predict poorer quadriceps strength following ACL reconstruction using all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (09) 3085-3095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57 (10) 1008-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Donner A, Eliasziw M. Sample size requirements for reliability studies. Stat Med 1987; 6 (04) 441-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Piva SR, Fitzgerald K, Irrgang JJ. et al. Reliability of measures of impairments associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7 (01) 33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Reurink G, Goudswaard GJ, Oomen HG. et al. Reliability of the active and passive knee extension test in acute hamstring injuries. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (08) 1757-1761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Maltais DB, Ferland C, Perron M, Roy JS. Reliability of inclinometer-derived passive range of motion measures in youth with cerebral palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2019; 39 (06) 655-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gajdosik RL, Bohannon RW. Clinical measurement of range of motion. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. Phys Ther 1987; 67 (12) 1867-1872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pandya S, Florence JM, King WM, Robison JD, Oxman M, Province MA. Reliability of goniometric measurements in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Phys Ther 1985; 65 (09) 1339-1342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Peters PG, Herbenick MA, Anloague PA, Markert RJ, Rubino III LJ. Knee range of motion: reliability and agreement of 3 measurement methods. Am J Orthop 2011; 40 (12) E249-E252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 dos Santos CM, Ferreira G, Malacco PL, Sabino GS, Moraes Gde S, Felício DC. Confiabilidade intra e interexaminadores e erro da medição no uso do goniômetro e inclinômetro digital. Rev Bras Med Esporte 2012; 18 (01) 38-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hancock GE, Hepworth T, Wembridge K. Accuracy and reliability of knee goniometry methods. J Exp Orthop 2018; 5 (01) 46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar