CONTEXT: Several factors affect the reliability of the anterior drawer and talar tilt tests, including the individual clinician's experience and skill, ankle and knee positioning, and muscle guarding. OBJECTIVES: To compare gastrocnemius activity during the measurement of ankle-complex motion at different knee positions, and secondarily, to compare ankle-complex motion during a simulated trial of muscle guarding. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three participants aged 20.2 ± 1.7 years were tested. INTERVENTION(S): The ankle was loaded under 2 test conditions (relaxed, simulated muscle guarding) at 2 knee positions (0°, 90° of flexion) while gastrocnemius electromyography (EMG) activity was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Anterior displacement (mm), inversion-eversion motion (°), and peak EMG amplitude values of the gastrocnemius (μV). RESULTS: Anterior displacement did not differ between the positions of 0° and 90° of knee flexion (P = .193). Inversion-eversion motion was greater at 0° of knee flexion compared with 90° (P < .001). Additionally, peak EMG amplitude of the gastrocnemius was not different between 0° and 90° of knee flexion during anterior displacement (P = .101). As expected, the simulated muscle-guarding trial reduced anterior displacement compared with the relaxed condition (0° of knee flexion, P = .008; 90° of knee flexion, P = .016) and reduced inversion-eversion motion (0° of knee flexion, P = .03; 90° of knee flexion, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a relaxed state, the gastrocnemius muscle did not appear to affect anterior ankle laxity at the 2 most common knee positions for anterior drawer testing; however, talar tilt testing may be best performed with the knee in 0° of knee flexion. Finally, our outcomes from the simulated muscle-guarding condition suggest that clinicians should use caution and be aware of reduced perceived laxity when performing these clinical examination techniques immediately postinjury.
CONTEXT: Several factors affect the reliability of the anterior drawer and talar tilt tests, including the individual clinician's experience and skill, ankle and knee positioning, and muscle guarding. OBJECTIVES: To compare gastrocnemius activity during the measurement of ankle-complex motion at different knee positions, and secondarily, to compare ankle-complex motion during a simulated trial of muscle guarding. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three participants aged 20.2 ± 1.7 years were tested. INTERVENTION(S): The ankle was loaded under 2 test conditions (relaxed, simulated muscle guarding) at 2 knee positions (0°, 90° of flexion) while gastrocnemius electromyography (EMG) activity was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Anterior displacement (mm), inversion-eversion motion (°), and peak EMG amplitude values of the gastrocnemius (μV). RESULTS: Anterior displacement did not differ between the positions of 0° and 90° of knee flexion (P = .193). Inversion-eversion motion was greater at 0° of knee flexion compared with 90° (P < .001). Additionally, peak EMG amplitude of the gastrocnemius was not different between 0° and 90° of knee flexion during anterior displacement (P = .101). As expected, the simulated muscle-guarding trial reduced anterior displacement compared with the relaxed condition (0° of knee flexion, P = .008; 90° of knee flexion, P = .016) and reduced inversion-eversion motion (0° of knee flexion, P = .03; 90° of knee flexion, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a relaxed state, the gastrocnemius muscle did not appear to affect anterior ankle laxity at the 2 most common knee positions for anterior drawer testing; however, talar tilt testing may be best performed with the knee in 0° of knee flexion. Finally, our outcomes from the simulated muscle-guarding condition suggest that clinicians should use caution and be aware of reduced perceived laxity when performing these clinical examination techniques immediately postinjury.
Authors: Neil A Schwarz; John E Kovaleski; Robert J Heitman; Larry R Gurchiek; Coral Gubler-Hanna Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: John E Kovaleski; Phillip M Norrell; Robert J Heitman; J Marcus Hollis; Albert W Pearsall Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Tricia J Hubbard; Thomas W Kaminski; Robert A Vander Griend; John E Kovaleski Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.411