scholarly journals Arthrometric Measurement of Ankle-Complex Motion: Normative Values

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil A. Schwarz ◽  
John E. Kovaleski ◽  
Robert J. Heitman ◽  
Larry R. Gurchiek ◽  
Coral Gubler-Hanna

Abstract Context: Valid and reliable measurements of ankle-complex motion have been reported using the Hollis Ankle Arthrometer. No published normative data of ankle-complex motion obtained from ankle arthrometry are available for use as a reference for clinical decision making. Objective: To describe the distribution variables of ankle-complex motion in uninjured ankles and to establish normative reference values for use in research and to assist in clinical decision making. Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Both ankles of 50 men and 50 women (age = 21.78 ± 2.0 years [range, 19–25 years]) were tested. Intervention(s): Each ankle underwent anteroposterior (AP) and inversion-eversion (I-E) loading using an ankle arthrometer. Main Outcome Measure(s): Recorded anterior, posterior, and total AP displacement (millimeters) at 125 N and inversion, eversion, and total I-E rotation (degrees) at 4 Nm. Results: Women had greater ankle-complex motion for all variables except for posterior displacement. Total AP displacement of the ankle complex was 18.79 ± 4.1 mm for women and 16.70 ± 4.8 mm for men (U = 3742.5, P < .01). Total I-E rotation of the ankle complex was 42.10° ± 9.0° for women and 34.13° ± 10.1° for men (U = 2807, P < .001). All variables were normally distributed except for anterior displacement, inversion rotation, eversion rotation, and total I-E rotation in the women's ankles and eversion rotation in the men's ankles; these variables were skewed positively. Conclusions: Our study increases the available database on ankle-complex motion, and it forms the basis of norm-referenced clinical comparisons and the basis on which quantitative definitions of ankle pathologic conditions can be developed.

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document