Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE
A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2012 December;48(4):569-75
Does choice of angular velocity affect pain level during isokinetic strength testing of knee osteoarthritis patients?
Almosnino S. 1, 2, Brandon S. C. E. 2, 3, Sled E. A. 4 ✉
1 School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada;
2 Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada;
3 Human Mobility Research Centre, Syl and Molly Apps Medical Research Centre, Kingston General Hospital and Queen’s University Kingston, ON, Canada;
4 School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
BACKGROUND: Thigh musculature strength assessment in individuals with knee osteoarthritis is routinely performed in rehabilitative settings. A factor that may influence results is pain experienced during testing.
AIM: To assess whether pain experienced during isokinetic testing in individuals with knee osteoarthritis is dependent on the angular velocity prescribed.
DESIGN: Experimental, repeated measures.
SETTING: University laboratory.
POPULATION: Thirty-five individuals (19 women, 16 men) with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis.
METHODS: Participants performed three randomized sets of five maximal concentric extension-flexion repetitions at 60°/s, 90°/s and 120°/s. Pain intensity was measured immediately after the completion of each set. Strength outcomes for each set were the average peak moment.
RESULTS: Across gender, pain level was not significantly affected by testing velocity (P=0.18, ηp2 =0.05). There was a trend of women reporting more pain than men across all testing velocities, however this comparison did not reach statistical significance (P=0.18, ηp2=0.05). There was a significant main effect of testing velocity on strength, with the highest level attained at 60°/s. However, no difference in strength was noted when testing was performed at 90°/s or 120°/s.
CONCLUSION: A large variation in pain scores within and across conditions and gender was noted, suggesting that at the current stage: 1) isokinetic angular velocity prescription be performed on an individual patient basis; and 2) improvements in the manner pain is recorded are needed in order to reduce the variations in pain scores.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Individual prescription of angular velocity may be necessary for optimal strength output and reduction of pain during effort exertion in this patient population.