ANALYSIS OF SPINE MOTION VARIABILITY USING A COMPUTERIZED GONIOMETER COMPARED TO PHYSICAL-EXAMINATION - A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL-STUDY

被引:54
作者
DOPF, CA [1 ]
MANDEL, SS [1 ]
GEIGER, DF [1 ]
MAYER, PJ [1 ]
机构
[1] HENRY FORD HOSP,DEPT ORTHOPAED SURG,2799 W GRAND BLVD,DETROIT,MI 48202
关键词
SPINAL GONIOMETER; SPINE MOTION VARIABILITY;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-199403000-00015
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
A prospective clinical study was carried out to determine whether the CA-6000 Spine Motion Analyzer was more reliable in measuring spine motion compared to previously described methods of physical examination. One-hundred-twenty age-controlled patients with a negative back history were tested with the CA-6000 to establish normal values. Interexaminer and intraexaminer correlation coefficients and coefficients of variation were determined for 30 patients by three different examiners, each testing the patients three times each. Each test consisted of examining flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation. For flexion, the CA-6000 was compared to the double inclinometer and Schober methods. For extension and lateral flexion, the CA-6000 was compared to the double inclinometer and Moll methods. For rotation, the CA-6000 was compared to the double inclinometer method. The interexaminer and intraexaminer variability using the CA-6000 was significantly less (P less-than-or-equal-to 0.025) than other methods for all motions except flexion. In flexion, the differences were not significantly different. The data from this experiment indicate that the CA-6000 has significantly less variability in measuring spine motion clinically than the other methods tested.
引用
收藏
页码:586 / 595
页数:10
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
Joint Motion, Method of Measuring and Recording, Chicago, pp. 48-51, (1965)
[2]  
Albrook D., Measurements of the lumbar spinal column, J Bone Joint Surg, 39B, pp. 339-345, (1957)
[3]  
Allen M., Clinical kinesiology: Measurement techniques for spinal disorders, Orthop Rev, 17, pp. 1097-1104, (1988)
[4]  
Boumphrey F., The Difficult Back Patient. Presented at AAOS-CME Update-Current Concepts in Lumbar Disc Disease, Cleveland, Ohio, May, 12, (1990)
[5]  
Engelburg A., Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Im-Pairment, (1988)
[6]  
Fitzgerald G.K., Wynveen K.J., Rheault W., Rothschild B., Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for spinal range of motion, Phys Ther, 63, pp. 1776-1781, (1983)
[7]  
Gill K., Drag M.H., Johnson G.B., Haugh L.D., Pope M.H., Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lum¬bar spinal motion, Spine, 13, pp. 50-53, (1988)
[8]  
Hanley E.N., Matteri R.E., Frymoyer J.W., Accurate roentgenographic determination of lumbar flexion-extension, Clin Orthop, 115, pp. 145-148, (1976)
[9]  
Holbrook T., Grazier K., The Frequency of Occurrence, Impact and Cost of Selected Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States, (1984)
[10]  
Hoppenfeld S., Physical Examination of the Spine and Extremities, pp. 247-249, (1976)