Ivy O W Man1, Kate L Markland, Matthew C Morrissey. 1. Centre for Applied Biomedical Research, GKT School of Biomedical Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Street, London SE1 1UL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate knee swelling evaluation is important in monitoring the progress of a patient's condition and rehabilitation. Water volumetry is the current gold standard of volume assessment but can be time consuming and unsuitable for assessing patients with open wounds. No previous study has reported the potential use of an optoelectronic device in assessing knee volume. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an optoelectronic device, the Perometer in knee volume assessment in uninjured subjects and compare it to the current gold standard of volume assessment - water displacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral knee measurements were measured in 20 uninjured individuals with both methods on two separate days using a one-way repeated measures design. A cylindrical object was also measured 10 times with both tools. RESULTS: The mathematically calculated volume of the cylinder was 1568 ml. The mean volume obtained by the Perometer was 1602 and 1620 ml by the volumeter. This represented an over-estimation of the true volume of 2.2% by the Perometer and 3.4% by the volumeter. A high correlation was found for repeated measures of knee volumes with both methods (r = 0.94, P<0.01). Limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated to assess the amount of agreement between the two methods and these ranged from -130 to 207 ml indicating a low degree of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Perometer is as reliable as the knee volumeter in assessing knee volume. However, the wide LOA suggest the two methods should not be used interchangeably.
BACKGROUND: Accurate knee swelling evaluation is important in monitoring the progress of a patient's condition and rehabilitation. Water volumetry is the current gold standard of volume assessment but can be time consuming and unsuitable for assessing patients with open wounds. No previous study has reported the potential use of an optoelectronic device in assessing knee volume. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an optoelectronic device, the Perometer in knee volume assessment in uninjured subjects and compare it to the current gold standard of volume assessment - water displacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral knee measurements were measured in 20 uninjured individuals with both methods on two separate days using a one-way repeated measures design. A cylindrical object was also measured 10 times with both tools. RESULTS: The mathematically calculated volume of the cylinder was 1568 ml. The mean volume obtained by the Perometer was 1602 and 1620 ml by the volumeter. This represented an over-estimation of the true volume of 2.2% by the Perometer and 3.4% by the volumeter. A high correlation was found for repeated measures of knee volumes with both methods (r = 0.94, P<0.01). Limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated to assess the amount of agreement between the two methods and these ranged from -130 to 207 ml indicating a low degree of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Perometer is as reliable as the knee volumeter in assessing knee volume. However, the wide LOA suggest the two methods should not be used interchangeably.
Authors: David S Logerstedt; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Richard C Ritter; Michael J Axe; Joseph J Godges Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: David S Logerstedt; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Richard C Ritter; Michael J Axe Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Rolf P Engelberger; Claudia Blazek; Felix Amsler; Hong H Keo; Frédéric Baumann; Werner Blättler; Iris Baumgartner; Torsten Willenberg Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Lorraine T Dean; Anagha Kumar; Taehoon Kim; Matthew Herling; Justin C Brown; Zi Zhang; Margaret Evangelisti; Renata Hackley; Jiyoung Kim; Andrea Cheville; Andrea B Troxel; J Sanford Schwartz; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: J Obes Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: Simon Gavanda; Eduard Isenmann; Yvonne Schlöder; Roland Roth; Jürgen Freiwald; Thorsten Schiffer; Stephan Geisler; Michael Behringer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240