Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2017; 30(03): 223-230
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584184
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Reliability of the Knee Smartphone-Application Goniometer in the Acute Orthopedic Setting

Luís Carlos Pereira
1   Department of Musculoskeletal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
,
Sylvia Rwakabayiza
1   Department of Musculoskeletal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
,
Estelle Lécureux
2   Medical Direction, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
,
Brigitte M. Jolles
1   Department of Musculoskeletal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
3   University of Lausanne (UNIL), Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 February 2016

10 April 2016

Publication Date:
24 May 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The standard goniometer (SG) is the most commonly used tool to assess range of motion (ROM) in patients with knee restrictions. Several medical applications have been designed to measure joint ROM. Little data are available on their reliability in the postoperative clinical setting. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a smartphone accelerometer-based knee goniometer application (App) is as reliable as the SG to measure knee ROM in clinical settings. A total of 60 subjects were included in this cross-sectional reliability trial. Overall, 20 healthy subjects (HS) and 20 acute postoperative patients (PO) underwent three active and three passive measurements in knee flexion and extension, using the SG and the smartphone knee goniometer App. To determine the fatigability of postoperative patients, a third group of 20 patients underwent a single active measurement in knee flexion and extension (PO1). Measurements were performed by three clinicians. For intraobserver reliability, mean intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were higher for the App in all circumstances (overall mean SG 0.85, App 0.91), indicating an excellent correlation. For interobserver reliability, the highest ICC scores were in the PO1 group, with the App more consistent than the SG in all movements. Interobserver reliability was lower in the PO group versus PO1. Interobserver reliability was better for active ROM than for passive measurements. The overall concordance coefficient was very good to excellent with active measurements (range, 0.60–0.97). In conclusion, the App is a reliable tool for use in acute orthopedic care and offers better intra- and interobserver correlation scores for a single active measurement.

Keywords

goniometry - accelerometer - knee joint - reliability

* The authors Luís Carlos Pereira and Sylvia Rwakabayiza have done equal amount of work in this study and therefore share the first authorship.


 

  • References

  • 1 Plotnikoff R, Karunamuni N, Lytvyak E , et al. Osteoarthritis prevalence and modifiable factors: a population study. BMC Public Health 2015; 15: 1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haanstra TM, van den Berg T, Ostelo RW , et al. Systematic review: do patient expectations influence treatment outcomes in total knee and total hip arthroplasty?. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10: 152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ipach I, Schäfer R, Lahrmann J, Kluba T. Stiffness after knee arthrotomy: evaluation of prevalence and results after manipulation under anaesthesia. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (3) 292-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim H, Shin YI, Joa KL, Shin YK, Lee JJ, You SJ. Immediate effect of Walkbot robotic gait training on neuromechanical knee stiffness in spastic hemiplegia: a case report. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 32 (4) 833-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Marouane H, Shirazi-Adl A, Adouni M. Knee joint passive stiffness and moment in sagittal and frontal planes markedly increase with compression. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2015; 18 (4) 339-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brosseau L, Balmer S, Tousignant M , et al. Intra- and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for measuring maximum active knee flexion and extension of patients with knee restrictions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (3) 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Milanese S, Gordon S, Buettner P , et al. Reliability and concurrent validity of knee angle measurement: smart phone app versus universal goniometer used by experienced and novice clinicians. Man Ther 2014; 19 (6) 569-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ritter MA, Lutgring JD, Davis KE, Berend ME, Pierson JL, Meneghini RM. The role of flexion contracture on outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (8) 1092-1096
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Piriyaprasarth P, Morris ME, Winter A, Bialocerkowski AE. The reliability of knee joint position testing using electrogoniometry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brosseau L, Tousignant M, Budd J , et al. Intratester and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for active knee flexion in healthy subjects. Physiother Res Int 1997; 2 (3) 150-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van Trijffel E, van de Pol RJ, Oostendorp RA, Lucas C. Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological movements in lower extremity joints is generally low: a systematic review. J Physiother 2010; 56 (4) 223-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ockendon M, Gilbert RE. Validation of a novel smartphone accelerometer-based knee goniometer. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (4) 341-345
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Boone DC, Azen SP, Lin CM, Spence C, Baron C, Lee L. Reliability of goniometric measurements. Phys Ther 1978; 58 (11) 1355-1360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bovens AM, van Baak MA, Vrencken JG, Wijnen JA, Verstappen FT. Variability and reliability of joint measurements. Am J Sports Med 1990; 18 (1) 58-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Edwards JZ, Greene KA, Davis RS, Kovacik MW, Noe DA, Askew MJ. Measuring flexion in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (3) 369-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Boulos MN, Wheeler S, Tavares C, Jones R. How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX. Biomed Eng Online 2011; 10: 24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Putzer GJ, Park Y. Are physicians likely to adopt emerging mobile technologies? Attitudes and innovation factors affecting smartphone use in the Southeastern United States. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2012; 9: 1b
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Franko OI. Useful apps for orthopedic surgeons. Am J Orthop 2012; 41 (11) 526-527
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Terry M. Medical Apps for Smartphones. Telemed J E Health 2010; 16 (1) 17-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ. Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15 (5) e95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jensen Ang WJ, Hopkins ME, Partridge R , et al. Validating the use of smartphone-based accelerometers for performance assessment in a simulated neurosurgical task. Neurosurgery 2014; 10 (Suppl. 01) 57-64 , discussion 64–65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Low D, York B, Eisses MJ. A novel use for the Apple (4th generation) iPod Touch in the operating room. Anaesthesia 2011; 66 (1) 61-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kailas A, Chong CC, Watanabe F. From mobile phones to personal wellness dashboards. IEEE Pulse 2010; 1 (1) 57-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Franko OI. Smartphone apps for orthopaedic surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (7) 2042-2048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wu R, Rossos P, Quan S , et al. An evaluation of the use of smartphones to communicate between clinicians: a mixed-methods study. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13 (3) e59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Oehler RL, Smith K, Toney JF. Infectious diseases resources for the iPhone. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50 (9) 1268-1274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dala-Ali BM, Lloyd MA, Al-Abed Y. The uses of the iPhone for surgeons. Surgeon 2011; 9 (1) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Georgetown University School of Medicine. Handheld computing requirement. Available at: https://som.georgetown.edu/studentservices/informatics/about/handheldcomputing . Accessed January 13, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Benioff M, Lazowska E. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. Revolutionizing Health Care Through Information Technology. Arlington, VA: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Souéid A, Khanna A. A free ‘app’ for plastic surgery: the smartphone spirit level. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012; 94 (8) 607
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Thomale UW, Knitter T, Schaumann A , et al. Smartphone-assisted guide for the placement of ventricular catheters. Childs Nerv Syst 2013; 29 (1) 131-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cleffken B, van Breukelen G, Brink P, van Mameren H, Olde Damink S. Digital goniometric measurement of knee joint motion. Evaluation of usefulness for research settings and clinical practice. Knee 2007; 14 (5) 385-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Rothstein JM, Miller PJ, Roettger RF. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Elbow and knee measurements. Phys Ther 1983; 63 (10) 1611-1615
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Unver B, Karatosun V, Bakirhan S. Reliability of goniometric measurements of flexion in total knee arthroplasty patients: with special reference to the body position. J Phys Ther Sci 2009; 21: 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hambly K, Sibley R, Ockendon M. Level of agreement between a novel smartphone application and a long arm goniometer for the assessment of maximum active knee flexion by an inexperienced tester. Int J Physiotherapy Rehabilitation. 2012; 2: 1-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Salter N. Methods of measurement of muscle and joint function. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1955; 37-B (3) 474-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Piriyaprasarth P, Morris ME. Psychometric properties of measurement tools for quantifying knee joint position and movement: a systematic review. Knee 2007; 14 (1) 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lenssen AF, van Dam EM, Crijns YH , et al. Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8: 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Harrison JP, Lee A. The role of e-Health in the changng health care environment. Nurs Econ 2006; 24 (6) 283-288 , 279, quiz 289
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Narayanswamy R, Johnson GE, Silveira PE, Wach HB. Extending the imaging volume for biometric iris recognition. Appl Opt 2005; 44 (5) 701-712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis; 1995
    Google Scholar