Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Institute for Orthopedic Research & Education (IORE), Houston, Texas.
J Surg Educ. 2018 May-Jun;75(3):739-748. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.009. Epub 2017 Oct 14.
Comparison of range of motion measurements by 3 types of investigators with different levels and types of training using three different measurement techniques. The study hypothesis was that the accuracy and precision of range of motion measurements would vary based on (1) the level and type of experience of the investigator and (2) the measurement technique used.
DESIGN/SETTING: Descriptive laboratory study.
Ten fresh frozen cadavers (20 upper and 20 lower extremities).
Shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee motion were measured using 3 different measurement techniques (digital photography, goniometry, and visual estimation) by 3 groups of investigators (attending orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and residents). Accuracy was defined by the difference from the reference standard (motion capture analysis), whereas precision was defined by the proportion of measurements within either 5° or 10° of the reference standard. Analysis of variance, t-tests, and chi-squared tests were used.
Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in accuracy were found for hip flexion, abduction, internal rotation, external rotation, and knee flexion. However, none of these differences met the authors' defined clinical significance (maximum difference 3°). Precision was significantly (p < 0.05) different for elbow extension, hip flexion, abduction, internal rotation, external rotation, and knee flexion.
This study found that clinically accurate measurements of shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee motion are obtained regardless of technique used or the investigators' level and type of experience. Precision was equivalent for all shoulder motions, elbow flexion, and knee extension, but varied by as much as 7% to 28% between groups for all other motions.
比较不同水平和类型训练的 3 种调查员使用 3 种不同测量技术进行的运动范围测量。研究假设是,运动范围测量的准确性和精度将基于(1)调查员的水平和类型经验和(2)使用的测量技术而有所不同。
设计/设置:描述性实验室研究。
10 个新鲜冷冻的尸体(20 个上肢和 20 个下肢)。
使用 3 种不同的测量技术(数字摄影、测角法和目测估计)由 3 组调查员(主治骨科医生、物理治疗师和住院医师)测量肩、肘、髋和膝关节运动。准确性定义为与参考标准(运动捕捉分析)的差异,而精度定义为测量值在参考标准的 5°或 10°内的比例。使用方差分析、t 检验和卡方检验。
在髋关节屈曲、外展、内旋、外旋和膝关节屈曲方面,发现准确性存在统计学显著(p < 0.05)差异。然而,这些差异均未达到作者定义的临床意义(最大差异 3°)。在肘关节伸展、髋关节屈曲、外展、内旋、外旋和膝关节屈曲方面,精度存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。
本研究发现,无论使用何种技术或调查员的水平和类型经验如何,都可以获得肩部、肘部、髋部和膝关节运动的临床准确测量。所有肩部运动、肘关节屈曲和膝关节伸展的精度均相等,但对于所有其他运动,各组之间的差异可达 7%至 28%。