The Validity of a Portable Strain-Gauge Apparatus Versus a Commercial Isokinetic Dynamometer for Evaluating Knee Extension Kinetics.

IF 1.6 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2024-03-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.26603/001c.92742
Dustin Oranchuk, Chris Juneau, Shelley Diewald, Jono Neville, John Cronin
{"title":"The Validity of a Portable Strain-Gauge Apparatus Versus a Commercial Isokinetic Dynamometer for Evaluating Knee Extension Kinetics.","authors":"Dustin Oranchuk, Chris Juneau, Shelley Diewald, Jono Neville, John Cronin","doi":"10.26603/001c.92742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Isokinetic dynamometers are widely used when assessing neuromuscular function including knee extension kinetics. However, these dynamometers are often prohibitively expensive and are not portable. Thus strain-gauge technology has grown in popularity.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare kinetic data captured via an isokinetic dynamometer against an affordable and portable strain-gauge with a treatment plinth during maximal isometric knee extensions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Healthy participants (8 males and 6 females; age 30.2±7.1 years) volunteered and performed knee extensions at a 90° knee angle on a dynamometer and a treatment plinth with a portable strain-gauge. Peak force (PF), peak rate of force development (PRFD), rate of force development (RFD<sub>2080</sub>) and impulse (IMP<sub>2080</sub>) from 20-80% of onset to peak force were assessed using both strain-gauge and isokinetic dynamometer. Between-device differences were evaluated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Cohen's <i>d</i> effect sizes (ES), Pearson's correlation coefficients (<i>r</i>), and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant or meaningful differences were identified between isokinetic and strain-gauge devices (all <i>p</i>≥0.268, ES≤0.35). However, slightly greater (2.5-9.5%) outputs were observed with the isokinetic dynamometer. Very large significant between-device correlations were found for PF (<i>r</i>=0.77, <i>p</i>=0.001) and PRFD (<i>r</i>=0.73, <i>p</i>=0.003), while small and moderate non-significant between-device correlations were found for RFD<sub>2080</sub> (<i>r</i>=0.48, <i>p</i>=0.079) and IMP<sub>2080</sub> (<i>r</i>=0.59, <i>p</i>=0.060). Bland-Altman plots did not reveal apparent biases from high to low performers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results indicate that the strain-gauge device can produce valid maximal and rapid force expression measurements. Similar results, such as those quantified via an isokinetic device, can be obtained without extreme rigour and constraint. The study's findings support using the practically relevant treatment plinth and strain-gauge combination as a suitable alternative to the isokinetic dynamometry for measuring PF and PRFD. Therefore, more rehabilitation and sports performance practitioners can confidently assess knee extension kinetics.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>3.</p>","PeriodicalId":47892,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10909301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.92742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Isokinetic dynamometers are widely used when assessing neuromuscular function including knee extension kinetics. However, these dynamometers are often prohibitively expensive and are not portable. Thus strain-gauge technology has grown in popularity.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare kinetic data captured via an isokinetic dynamometer against an affordable and portable strain-gauge with a treatment plinth during maximal isometric knee extensions.

Study design: Cross-sectional study.

Methods: Healthy participants (8 males and 6 females; age 30.2±7.1 years) volunteered and performed knee extensions at a 90° knee angle on a dynamometer and a treatment plinth with a portable strain-gauge. Peak force (PF), peak rate of force development (PRFD), rate of force development (RFD2080) and impulse (IMP2080) from 20-80% of onset to peak force were assessed using both strain-gauge and isokinetic dynamometer. Between-device differences were evaluated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Cohen's d effect sizes (ES), Pearson's correlation coefficients (r), and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: No significant or meaningful differences were identified between isokinetic and strain-gauge devices (all p≥0.268, ES≤0.35). However, slightly greater (2.5-9.5%) outputs were observed with the isokinetic dynamometer. Very large significant between-device correlations were found for PF (r=0.77, p=0.001) and PRFD (r=0.73, p=0.003), while small and moderate non-significant between-device correlations were found for RFD2080 (r=0.48, p=0.079) and IMP2080 (r=0.59, p=0.060). Bland-Altman plots did not reveal apparent biases from high to low performers.

Conclusions: These results indicate that the strain-gauge device can produce valid maximal and rapid force expression measurements. Similar results, such as those quantified via an isokinetic device, can be obtained without extreme rigour and constraint. The study's findings support using the practically relevant treatment plinth and strain-gauge combination as a suitable alternative to the isokinetic dynamometry for measuring PF and PRFD. Therefore, more rehabilitation and sports performance practitioners can confidently assess knee extension kinetics.

Level of evidence: 3.

便携式应变仪与商用等动测力计在评估膝关节伸展运动学方面的有效性对比。
背景:在评估包括膝关节伸展动力学在内的神经肌肉功能时,等速测力计被广泛使用。然而,这些测力计通常过于昂贵,而且不便于携带。目的:本研究的目的是比较通过等速测力计采集的运动学数据,以及在最大等长膝关节伸展过程中,通过带有治疗基座的经济便携式应变仪采集的运动学数据:方法:健康参与者(8 名男性和 6 名女性;年龄为 30.2±7.1 岁)自愿参加,在测力计和带有便携式应变仪的治疗基座上以 90° 膝角进行膝关节伸展运动。使用应变仪和等动式测力计对峰值力(PF)、峰值力发展率(PRFD)、力发展率(RFD2080)和从起始力的 20-80% 到峰值力的冲量(IMP2080)进行了评估。通过 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验、Cohen's d效应大小 (ES)、皮尔逊相关系数 (r) 和 Bland-Altman 图评估不同设备之间的差异:等速运动装置和应变片装置之间没有发现明显或有意义的差异(均 p≥0.268,ES≤0.35)。不过,等速测力计的输出量略大(2.5%-9.5%)。PF(r=0.77,p=0.001)和 PRFD(r=0.73,p=0.003)的设备间相关性非常大,而 RFD2080(r=0.48,p=0.079)和 IMP2080(r=0.59,p=0.060)的设备间相关性较小和中等,不显著。Bland-Altman图没有显示出从高到低执行者的明显偏差:这些结果表明,应变片装置可以进行有效的最大和快速力表达测量。结论:这些结果表明,应变片装置可以进行有效的最大和快速力量表达测量。类似的结果,如通过等速装置量化的结果,可以在没有极端严格和限制的情况下获得。研究结果支持使用与实际情况相关的治疗基座和应变仪组合,作为等动测力法测量 PF 和 PRFD 的合适替代方法。因此,更多的康复和运动表现从业者可以自信地评估膝关节伸展动力学:3.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
124
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信