Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among highly-trained male athletes. Only participants who showed normal knee valgus during a drop landing screening test were recruited. Twelve junior athletes performed single leg squats while maintaining a knee flexion angle of 60°. The squats were executed in three foot positions: neutral (0°), adduction (-10°), and abduction (+10°). Three-dimensional motion analysis was used to capture the lower extremity kinematics of the participants' preferred limb. The hip and knee kinematics in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes during squatting were compared across the three foot positions using one-way ANOVA.
Results: The participants showed a normal range of dynamic knee valgus (5.3°±1.6). No statistically significant differences were observed in hip flexion (p = 0.322), adduction (p = 0.834), or internal rotation (p = 0.967) across different foot positions. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were observed in knee flexion (p = 0.489), adduction (p = 0.822), or internal rotation (p = 0.971) across different foot positions.
Conclusion: Small changes in transverse plane foot position do not affect lower extremity kinematics during single leg squat in highly trained adolescent males with normal dynamic knee valgus. Our findings may provide guidance on safer techniques for landing, pivoting, and cutting during training and game situations.
Methods: Seven patients with acute grade 1 ankle sprain (15 days of ankle sprain) were recruited. They were provided with 7 days of protection, optimal loading, ice, compression, and elevation (POLICE) treatment, and the standard physiotherapy programme consisted of towel stretching and balancing exercises on one leg. Pain scale score was recorded daily during the physiotherapy programme. The isokinetic ankle strengths of the patient's injured and uninjured legs were compared before and after the physiotherapy programme. Isokinetic tests were conducted in painless range of motion for the injured leg.
Results: Pain was significantly reduced after the patients underwent the standard physiotherapy programme. No significant differences were observed in terms of the ankle peak torque, time to peak torque, and ankle plantar flexion-to-dorsiflexion ratio of the injured and uninjured legs. The injured leg showed significant improvement in terms of ankle eversion-to-inversion ratio (E:I) after 7 days of performing the standard physiotherapy programme.
Conclusion: Performing the standard physiotherapy programme for 1 week reduces pain and improves the ankle E:I in patients with grade 1 ankle sprain.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients with type V and VI proximal tibial fractures who presented between January 2012 to January 2015 were managed with hybrid external fixation and were followed-up for a period of 3 years.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 42.26 years with the left knee being more commonly affected. Schatzkers type V was the more common fracture type seen. The mean time to union was 12.06 weeks and the average range of motion achieved was 0 to 100°. The mean Rasmussens functional score was 25.4 at last follow-up and we had excellent results in 5 patients and good results in 22 patients.
Conclusion: Through this study, we conclude that the hybrid external fixation is an excellent option in the type V and VI fractures with extensive soft tissue compromise. It is easy to apply, facilitates early mobilisation of the joint and gives good functional results.
METHODS: A total of 11 participants with NS-NP were recruited. Pain intensity, active range of motion (AROM), posture, deep neck flexor (DNF) endurance, combined neck movements and disability were measured using face-to-face and TR methods, with a one-hour break in between. TelePTsys, an image-based TR system, was used for TR assessment.
RESULTS: A high degree of concurrent validity for pain (bias = 0.90), posture (bias = 0.96°), endurance (bias = -2.3 seconds), disability (bias = 0.10), AROM (extension bias = -0.60 cm, flexion bias = 1.2 cm, side flexion bias = -1.00, rotation bias = -0.30 cm) was found. Standard error of measurement and coefficient of variation (CV) values were within the acceptable level for concurrent validity, except the CV for cervical flexion and endurance. There was a high degree of reliability demonstrated for pain, posture, AROM, endurance and disability measurements. The average-measure interclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)) ranged from 0.96 to 0.99 for inter-rater, and 0.93 to 0.99 for intra-rater reliabilities. There was moderate agreement for combination movement for validity (78.5%, p
METHODS: Male participants (age 22.0±3.4) performed ramped isometric knee extensions at knee joint angles of 90°, 70°, 50° and 30° of flexion. Strain patterns of the anterior and posterior regions of the patellar tendon were determined using real-time B-mode ultrasonography at each knee joint angle. Regional strain measures were compared using an automated pixel tracking method.
RESULTS: Strain was seen to be greatest for both the anterior and posterior regions with the knee at 90° (7.76±0.89% and 5.06±0.76%). Anterior strain was seen to be significantly greater (p<0.05) than posterior strain for all knee angles apart from 30°, 90°=(7.76vs. 5.06%), 70°=(4.77vs. 3.75%), and 50°=(3.74vs. 2.90%). The relative strain (ratio of anterior to posterior), was greatest with the knee joint angle at 90°, and decreased as the knee joint angle reduced.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate that not only are there greater absolute tendon strains with the knee in greater flexion, but that the knee joint angle affects the regional strain differentially, resulting in greater shear between the tendon layers with force application when the knee is in greater degrees of flexion. These results have important implications for rehabilitation and training.
Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study, including 48 patients from a single institution who underwent MUA for stiffness, separated into objective and subjective knee stiffness. Patients with subjective knee stiffness who underwent MUA had failed conservative management. ROM, Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Short Form 36 (SF36) scores were compared at two years post MUA.
Results: The demographics of the two patient groups were similar. The time interval between index TKA and MUA was higher in the subjective knee stiffness group. Pre-MUA OKS, KS Function Score, KSS and SF36 scores were similar in both patient subgroups. There was no significant difference in the OKS, KSS or SF36 at two year follow-up. The proportion of patients in each group who achieved the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) improvement in the scores was also similar.
Conclusions: Patients with subjective knee stiffness can achieve similar functional outcome improvements in Oxford and Knee Society Scores with MUA at two years follow-up.
INTRODUCTION: Finger stiffness after treatment for metacarpal fractures often occurs due to poor compliance to the conventional rehabilitation programs. Gamification has shown success in improving adherence to and effectiveness of various therapies.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether gamification, using cost-effective devices was comparable with conventional physiotherapy in improving hand functions and adherence to rehabilitation in metacarpal fractures.
METHODS: A 2-group randomized controlled trial involving 19 patients was conducted. Participants were randomized to a control (conventional physiotherapy, n = 10) or interventional group (gamification, n = 9). The grips strength and composite finger range of motion were measured at the baseline and each follow-up together with Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation scores and compliance.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences on improvements of grip strength (means difference 24.38 vs 20.44, P = .289) and composite finger range of motion (means difference 50.50 vs 51.11, P = .886). However, the gamification group showed better results in Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (mean 0.44 vs 8.45, P = .038) and compliance (P