Stillman B C, McMeeken J M
School of Physiotherapy,The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052.
Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(4):247-53. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60272-5.
Knee joint position sense was assessed by active tests with active limb matching responses in supine lying and in unilateral weightbearing (WB) stance using (re)positioning of the whole limb whilst focusing on the knee, and in supine lying using (re)positioning confined to the knee. Following five tests at approximately 45 degrees knee flexion in all three test conditions, position sense was found to be significantly more accurate and reliable following the WB procedure. Possible explanations are, first, that during WB the subjects were more able to assist identification of the test positions using cues obtained during movement of the knee to and from these positions. Second, a larger volume of proprioceptive afferent information may have been derived from sources outside the examined knee, and even outside the examined limb. Whilst WB joint position sense assessments are more functional, the obtained results may not characterise the capacity of the proprioceptors in and around the examined (knee) joint. Since the WB and NWB results were not correlated, one procedure cannot be used to predict results from the others. Also, predominantly unilateral WB stance is often impractical for subjects with limited balance or WB pain.
膝关节位置觉通过主动测试进行评估，测试时受试者仰卧位以及单腿负重（WB）站立，在关注膝关节的同时对整个肢体进行（重新）定位以产生主动肢体匹配反应，并且在仰卧位时仅对膝关节进行（重新）定位。在所有三种测试条件下，于膝关节屈曲约45度时进行五次测试后，发现负重程序后的位置觉明显更准确且可靠。可能的解释如下，其一，在负重过程中，受试者更能够利用膝关节往返这些位置运动时获得的线索来辅助识别测试位置。其二，更多的本体感觉传入信息可能源自被检查膝关节之外，甚至是被检查肢体之外的部位。虽然负重关节位置觉评估更具功能性，但所获得的结果可能无法表征被检查（膝关节）关节及其周围本体感受器的能力。由于负重和非负重结果不相关，一种程序无法用于预测其他程序的结果。此外，对于平衡能力有限或负重时疼痛的受试者而言，主要采用单侧负重站立往往不切实际。
