PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(03): 233-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641140
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Reliability of Intraoperative Knee Range of Motion Measurements by Goniometer Compared with Robot-Assisted Arthroplasty

Hyuck Min Kwon
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Ick-Hwan Yang
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Woo-Suk Lee
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Alvin Ray L. Yu
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Manila, Philippines
,
Sang Yun Oh
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Kwan Kyu Park
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

04. Dezember 2017

25. Februar 2018

Publikationsdatum:
04. April 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Accurate measurement of knee range of motion (ROM) is critical to predict the outcomes of knee surgery and prognosis. We investigated the reliability of knee ROM measurements by goniometer compared with robotic system. Fifty-three patients with medial osteoarthritis who were planning to undergo unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with robotic UKA were prospectively enrolled. During the operation, knee ROM measurement was performed in both flexion and extension before and after insertion of the implant using both a goniometer and robotic system. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of extension measured by the goniometer and robotic system showed good agreement; however, the ICC of flexion did not show good agreement. During passive flexion, the mean values measured before insertion of the implant were significantly lower by goniometer (134.6 ± 6.43) than by robot (145.4 ± 6.80; p = 0.017); likewise, the mean values after insertion of the implant were significantly lower by goniometer (138.6 ± 6.07) than by robotic system (147.0 ± 6.60; p = 0.045). A goniometer can underestimate knee ROM measurements compared with robotic system, especially in flexion. Orthopaedic surgeons should be cautious when measuring the flexion angle with a goniometer.

Keywords

knee range of motion - goniometer - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - robot - reliability
 

  • References

  • 1 Bitton R. The economic burden of osteoarthritis. Am J Manag Care 2009; 15 (8, Suppl): S230-S235
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Mihalko WM, Whiteside LA. Bone resection and ligament treatment for flexion contracture in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (406) 141-147
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Scuderi GR, Kochhar T. Management of flexion contracture in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) (Suppl. 01) 20-24
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Anouchi YS, McShane M, Kelly Jr F, Elting J, Stiehl J. Range of motion in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (331) 87-92
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Carvalho Júnior LH, Teixeira BP, Bernardes CO, Soares LF, Gonçalves MB, Temponi EF. Range of motion predictability after total knee arthroplasty with medial pivot prosthesis. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52 (02) 197-202
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Walker SA, Dennis KN. Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: the effect of implant design and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (07) 748-752
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH. Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (02) 107-114
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jenny JY. Measurement of the knee flexion angle with a smartphone-application is precise and accurate. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (05) 784-787
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Miner AL, Lingard EA, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Katz JN. ; Kinemax Outcomes Group. Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: how important is this as an outcome measure?. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03) 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Myles CM, Rowe PJ, Walker CR, Nutton RW. Knee joint functional range of movement prior to and following total knee arthroplasty measured using flexible electrogoniometry. Gait Posture 2002; 16 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lavernia C, D'Apuzzo M, Rossi MD, Lee D. Accuracy of knee range of motion assessment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (06) (Suppl. 01) 85-91
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Gogia PP, Braatz JH, Rose SJ, Norton BJ. Reliability and validity of goniometric measurements at the knee. Phys Ther 1987; 67 (02) 192-195
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Watkins MA, Riddle DL, Lamb RL, Personius WJ. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of knee range of motion obtained in a clinical setting. Phys Ther 1991; 71 (02) 90-96
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 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 (03) 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Clapper MP, Wolf SL. Comparison of the reliability of the Orthoranger and the standard goniometer for assessing active lower extremity range of motion. Phys Ther 1988; 68 (02) 214-218
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Edwards JZ, Greene KA, Davis RS, Kovacik MW, Noe DA, Askew MJ. Measuring flexion in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (03) 369-372
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Bennett D, Hanratty B, Thompson N, Beverland D. Measurement of knee joint motion using digital imaging. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (06) 1627-1631
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Austin MS, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Trappler R, Parvizi J, Hozack WJ. The assessment of intraoperative prosthetic knee range of motion using two methods. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (04) 515-521
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 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 (05) 385-389
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 de Achaval S, Kallen MA, Amick B. , et al. Patients' expectations about total knee arthroplasty outcomes. Health Expect 2016; 19 (02) 299-308
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Saeki S, Chisaka H, Hachisuka K. Life satisfaction and functional disabilities in long-term survivors after first stroke. J UOEH 2005; 27 (02) 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Lonner JH. Robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with a handheld image-free sculpting tool. Orthop Clin North Am 2016; 47 (01) 29-40
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Boone DC, Azen SP, Lin CM, Spence C, Baron C, Lee L. Reliability of goniometric measurements. Phys Ther 1978; 58 (11) 1355-1360
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ha CW, Park YB, Song YS, Kim JH, Park YG. Increased range of motion is important for functional outcome and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (06) 1199-1203
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kim TK, Kwon SK, Kang YG, Chang CB, Seong SC. Functional disabilities and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in female Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (03) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Tarabichi S, Tarabichi Y, Hawari M. Achieving deep flexion after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (02) 219-224
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Tekin B, Unver B, Karatosun V. Expectations in patients with total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2012; 46 (03) 174-180
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Moore ML. The measurement of joint motion; introductory review of the literature. Phys Ther Rev 1949; 29 (05) 195-205
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Salter N. Methods of measurement of muscle and joint function. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1955; 37-B (03) 474-491
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Bull AM, Amis AA. Knee joint motion: description and measurement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1998; 212 (05) 357-372
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Mofidi A, Plate JF, Lu B. , et al. Assessment of accuracy of robotically assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1918-1925
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar