BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of (new) treatments or analyse prevalence and risk factors of contractures, rating scales are used based on joint range of motion. However, cut-off points for levels of severity vary between scales, and it seems unclear how cut-off points relate to function. The purpose of this study was to compare severity ratings of different rating scales for the shoulder and elbow and relate these with functional range of motion.METHODS: Often used contracture severity rating scales in orthopedics, physiotherapy, and burns were included. Functional range of motion angles for the shoulder and elbow were derived from a recent synthesis published by our group. Shoulder flexion and elbow flexion range of motion data of patients three months after a burn injury were rated with each of the scales to illustrate the effects of differences in classifications. Secondly, the shoulder and elbow flexion range of motion angles were related to the required angles to perform over 50 different activities of daily living tasks.RESULTS: Eighteen rating scales were included (shoulder: 6, elbow: 12). Large differences in the number of severity levels and the cut-off points between scales were determined. Rating the measured range of motions with the different scales showed substantial inconsistency in the number of joints without impairment (shoulder: 14-36%, elbow: 26-100%) or with severe impairment (shoulder: < 10%-29%, elbow 0%-17%). Cut-off points of most scales were not related to actual function in daily living.CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for rating scales that express the severity of contractures in terms of loss of functionality. This study proposes a direction for a solution.
BACKGROUND: Instability of the knee joint during gait is frequently reported by patients with knee osteoarthritis or an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. The assessment of instability in clinical practice and clinical research studies mainly relies on self-reporting. Alternatively, parameters measured with gait analysis have been explored as suitable objective indicators of dynamic knee (in)stability.RESEARCH QUESTION: This literature review aimed to establish an inventory of objective parameters of knee stability during gait.METHODS: Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl and SPORTDiscuss) were systematically searched, with keywords concerning knee, stability and gait. Eligible studies used an objective parameter(s) to assess knee (in)stability during gait, being stated in the introduction or methods section. Out of 10717 studies, 89 studies were considered eligible.RESULTS: Fourteen different patient populations were investigated with kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyography measurements during (challenged) gait. Thirty-three possible objective parameters were identified for knee stability, of which the majority was based on kinematic (14 parameters) or electromyography (12 parameters) measurements. Thirty-nine studies used challenged gait (i.e. external perturbations, downhill walking) to provoke knee joint instability. Limited or conflicting results were reported on the validity of the 33 parameters.SIGNIFICANCE: In conclusion, a large number of different candidates for an objective knee stability gait parameter were found in literature, all without compelling evidence. A clear conceptual definition for dynamic knee joint stability is lacking, for which we suggest : "The capacity to respond to a challenge during gait within the natural boundaries of the knee". Furthermore biomechanical gait laboratory protocols should be harmonized, to enable future developments on clinically relevant measure(s) of knee stability during gait.
LINK
