Investigation of measurement conditions using the portable functional effective muscle strength measurement system

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018.56 (0) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Takuya KOIDE ◽  
Hiroshi TAKAHAMA ◽  
Masanobu Manno ◽  
Tomohiko FUJIKAWA
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Measurement System ◽  
Strength Measurement ◽  
Muscle Strength Measurement

scholarly journals Portable, One-Dimensional, Trunk-Flexor Muscle Strength Measurement System

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 851-854
Author(s):  
Jefferson Fagundes Loss ◽  
Edgar Santiago Wagner Neto ◽  
Tatiane Borsoi de Siqueira ◽  
Aline Dill Winck ◽  
Laura Silveira de Moura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Measurement System ◽  
Athletic Performance ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Flexor Muscle ◽  
Strength Measurement ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Muscle Strength Measurement

Trunk-flexor muscle strength plays a fundamental role in athletic performance, but objective measurements are usually obtained using expensive and nonportable equipment, such as isokinetic dynamometers. The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of a portable, one-dimensional, trunk-flexor muscle strength measurement system (Measurement System) that uses calibrated barbells and the reliability of the measurements obtained using the Measurement System, by conducting test–retests. As a complementary assessment, the measurements obtained during a maximum contraction test performed by a group of 15 subjects were also recorded. Four conditions were assessed: repeatability, time reproducibility, position reproducibility, and subject reproducibility. The results demonstrate that both the concurrent validity and the measured reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > .98) of the Measurement System are acceptable. The Measurement System provides valid and reliable measures of trunk-flexor muscle strength.

scholarly journals Posturography table is a good test to evaluate the anterior cruciate Ligament reconstruction?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (5_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0021
Author(s):  
Frank Wein ◽  
Laetitia Peultier ◽  
Didier Mainard ◽  
Philippe Perrin
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Strength Measurement ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Isokinetic Muscle Strength ◽  
Unstable Support ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Muscle Strength Measurement

Introduction: The success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is assessed using subjective and functional scores, as well as measurements of knee laxity. The latter is often quantified using instrumented laximetry devices, which measure ‘static’ anterior tibial translation, though recent studies suggested more comprehensive “dynamic” analyses such as jump tests. To facilitate and improve dynamic stability analyses, a proprioception table was adapted to evaluate knees before and after ACLR, though the accuracy and pertinence of its measurement have not yet been demonstrated. Objectives: To determine whether proprioceptive analysis following ACLR provides meaningful and helpful information to guide surgeons and physiotherapists with postoperative rehabilitation and return to sports. Methods: We conducted a prospective study, on a population of 50 amateur or professional sports patients, who received ACLR by the one surgeon (FW). Preoperative and 6-months assessments included GnRB laxity analysis and proprioceptive dynamic stability analysis, with evaluation of the bearing area under 6 different conditions: open eyes (C1), closed eyes (C2), vision distorted by virtual reality headset (C3), open eyes on unstable support (C4), closed eyes on unstable support (C5) and distorted vison on unstable support (C6); a calculation of the C4/C1 ratio enabled appreciation of visual compensations in the proprioceptive capacity, and dependence on visual inference (low ratios indicate greater recourse to visual afference). A complementary analysis of muscular strength by isokinetic assessment was also performed at 6 months followup. Results: There was a significant improvement in proprioception table stability at 6 months compared to the preoperative condition at the C4 (470 vs 440 mm2), C5 (1710 vs 1315 mm2) and C6 (1330 vs 1210 mm2) assessments. For 32 patients evaluated by GnRB, differential laxity at 6 months was less than 5 mm at 200 N, and isokinetic muscle strength measurement was less than 20% different between the knee healthy and the operated knee, or between quadriceps and hamstrings. Proprioceptive quality was variable, with significant visual offsets in some cases (C4/C1 ratio, 0.5 to 16.2). Conclusion: Patients, who have good results in laximeter tests and isokinetic muscle strength measurement, may have a poor proporioception quality with significant visual offsets. The proprioception analysis at 6 months following ACLR could therefore be important to consider rehabilitation and sports recovery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document