Vijay Batra1, Vijai Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi Batra, Girdhar Gopal Agarwal, Vineet Sharma. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation and Artificial Limb Centre, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University (Formerly King George Medical University), Dali Ganj Bridge, Nabiullah Road, Lucknow: 226018, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Knee proprioception is compromised in knee osteoarthritis. There are several ways of measuring proprioceptive acuity, but there is lack of consensus over the ideal testing position. The study aimed to evaluate the influence of 2 testing positions (sitting versus prone lying) on proprioceptive knee assessment score in patients with early knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: The study included 70 subjects who came to the Out-Patient Department with a diagnosis of early knee osteoarthritis. The subjects were assessed for their proprioceptive acuity scores in both the test positions at 30° and 60° of knee flexion using proprioceptive knee assessment device. They were asked to perform 5 trials in both testing positions with appropriate rest intervals. After initial assessment, the subjects were randomly allocated among group 1 and group 2. Treatment implementation was done for 8 weeks followed by re-evaluation: group 1 received context-specific proprioceptive retraining along with multijoint coupling strategies and group 2, conventional treatment. RESULTS: The subjects were compared using difference of pre- and post-treatment proprioceptive acuity scores. The difference of proprioceptive acuity impairment scores of the left knee at 30° and 60°, and the right knee at 60° in prone lying position were statistically significant, with P value ranging from less than 0.001 to 0.028. CONCLUSION: It was found that the prone lying testing position was more sensitive than sitting position for assessing proprioceptive acuity for knee osteoarthritis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Knee proprioception is compromised in knee osteoarthritis. There are several ways of measuring proprioceptive acuity, but there is lack of consensus over the ideal testing position. The study aimed to evaluate the influence of 2 testing positions (sitting versus prone lying) on proprioceptive knee assessment score in patients with early knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: The study included 70 subjects who came to the Out-Patient Department with a diagnosis of early knee osteoarthritis. The subjects were assessed for their proprioceptive acuity scores in both the test positions at 30° and 60° of knee flexion using proprioceptive knee assessment device. They were asked to perform 5 trials in both testing positions with appropriate rest intervals. After initial assessment, the subjects were randomly allocated among group 1 and group 2. Treatment implementation was done for 8 weeks followed by re-evaluation: group 1 received context-specific proprioceptive retraining along with multijoint coupling strategies and group 2, conventional treatment. RESULTS: The subjects were compared using difference of pre- and post-treatment proprioceptive acuity scores. The difference of proprioceptive acuity impairment scores of the left knee at 30° and 60°, and the right knee at 60° in prone lying position were statistically significant, with P value ranging from less than 0.001 to 0.028. CONCLUSION: It was found that the prone lying testing position was more sensitive than sitting position for assessing proprioceptive acuity for knee osteoarthritis.