| Literature DB >> 21080945 |
Eva Ageberg1, Kim L Bennell, Michael A Hunt, Milena Simic, Ewa M Roos, Mark W Creaby.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle function may influence the risk of knee injury and outcomes following injury. Clinical tests, such as a single-limb mini squat, resemble conditions of daily life and are easy to administer. Fewer squats per 30 seconds indicate poorer function. However, the quality of movement, such as the medio-lateral knee motion may also be important. The aim was to validate an observational clinical test of assessing the medio-lateral knee motion, using a three-dimensional (3-D) motion analysis system. In addition, the inter-rater reliability was evaluated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21080945 PMCID: PMC2998461 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Characteristics of the subjects
| Characteristic | Knee-over-foot (n = 15) | Knee-medial-to-foot(n = 10) | All (n = 25) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y), mean (SD) | 26 (6.1) | 25 (4.1) | 26 (5.3) |
| Women (n) | 10 | 7 | 17 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean SD | 22.5 (3.5) | 24.3 (3.9) | 23.2 (3.7) |
| Recreational physical activity/no physical activity (n) | 12/3 | 6/4 | 18/7 |
| KOOS subscales | |||
| Pain | 98 (3.9) | 99 (2.6) | 98 (3.4) |
| Symptoms | 97 (3.5) | 95 (4.1) | 96 (3.8) |
| ADL | 100 (0.8) | 100 (0.0) | 100 (0.6) |
| Sport/Rec | 98 (4.1) | 99 (3.4) | 98 (3.8) |
| QOL | 97 (7.0) | 97 (5.1) | 97 (6.2) |
BMI, body mass index
Figure 1Knee-over-foot position during the single-limb mini squat.
Figure 2Knee-medial-to-foot position during the single-limb mini squat.
Two- and three-dimensional kinematic data (degrees) for the knee-over-foot and knee-medial-to-foot groups, and between groups.
| Kinematic variables (degrees) | Knee-over-foot (n = 15) | Knee-medial-to-foot (n = 10) | Knee-over-foot vs knee-medial to foot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SE) | Mean (SE) | Mean difference (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Peak tibial angle § | 86.3 (0.4) | 89.0 (0.7) | -2.7 (-4.2, -1.2) | 0.001 |
| Peak thigh angle § | 81.2 (0.5) | 77.4 (1.0) | 3.8 (1.7, 5.9) | 0.001 |
| Peak knee varus-valgus* | -5.0 (0.8) | -11.6 (1.5) | 6.6 (3.4, 9.7) | < 0.001 |
| Peak hip rotation† | 4.8 (1.8) | 10.6 (2.1) | -5.8 (-11.6, -0.02) | 0.049 |
| Peak knee varus-valgus* | -5.0 (1.2) | -6.1 (1.8) | 1.1 (-5.5, 3.2) | 0.589 |
* Negative value = valgus, positive value = varus
† Negative value = external rotation, positive value = internal rotation
§ Angles reported relative to the horizontal, with lower values indicating the segment was more medially oriented at the knee
Figure 3Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve linking the examiner ratings with the results from the two-dimensional peak knee varus-valgus angle. The ROC curve (blue line) moves steeply up and then across, not close to the diagonal (black line), indicating that the observational clinical test is good at discriminating between those with and without a medial knee position.