K P Gill1, M J Callaghan. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Hope Hospital, Salford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and intertester reproducibility of the Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) as a measure of thoracolumbar range of motion (RoM), velocity and acceleration. DESIGN: The study was a clinical trial using asymptomatic subjects. BACKGROUND: The LMM is a promising device from a clinical and research perspective, though the reproducibility of it's measurements has yet to be fully determined on subjects under free motion conditions. METHODS: For intratester reproducibility, 15 subjects were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s through flexion, side flexion, and rotation. They were tested on three occasions with 48 h separating tests. For intertester reproducibility, 10 subjects were tested by two examiners, and were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s. RESULTS: Intratester reproducibility coefficients ranged between 0.82 and 0.87 for RoM, 0.61 and 0.87 for velocity, and 0.46 and 0.72 for acceleration. Rotation had the poorest reproducibility in each instance. Intertester reproducibility ranged between 0.93 and 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the LMM is suitably high for RoM and velocity for the device to be used for evaluation in a clinical and research setting.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and intertester reproducibility of the Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) as a measure of thoracolumbar range of motion (RoM), velocity and acceleration. DESIGN: The study was a clinical trial using asymptomatic subjects. BACKGROUND: The LMM is a promising device from a clinical and research perspective, though the reproducibility of it's measurements has yet to be fully determined on subjects under free motion conditions. METHODS: For intratester reproducibility, 15 subjects were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s through flexion, side flexion, and rotation. They were tested on three occasions with 48 h separating tests. For intertester reproducibility, 10 subjects were tested by two examiners, and were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s. RESULTS: Intratester reproducibility coefficients ranged between 0.82 and 0.87 for RoM, 0.61 and 0.87 for velocity, and 0.46 and 0.72 for acceleration. Rotation had the poorest reproducibility in each instance. Intertester reproducibility ranged between 0.93 and 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the LMM is suitably high for RoM and velocity for the device to be used for evaluation in a clinical and research setting.