Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND
The objective of the present study was to assess interobserver reproducibility (in terms of reliability and agreement) of active and passive measurements of knee RoM using a long arm goniometer, performed by trained physical therapists in a clinical setting in total knee arthroplasty patients, within the first four days after surgery.


METHODS
Test-retest analysis.


METHODS
University hospital departments of orthopaedics and physical therapy.


METHODS
Two experienced physical therapists assessed 30 patients, three days after total knee arthroplasty.


METHODS
RoM measurement using a long-arm (50 cm) goniometer. Agreement was calculated as the mean difference between observers +/- 95% CI of this mean difference. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability, based on two-way random effects analysis of variance.


RESULTS
The lowest level of agreement was that for measurement of passive flexion with the patient in supine position (mean difference 1.4 degrees ; limits of agreement 16.2 degrees to 19 degrees for the difference between the two observers. The highest levels of agreement were found for measurement of passive flexion with the patient in sitting position and for measurement of passive extension (mean difference 2.7 degrees ; limits of agreement -6.7 to 12.1 and mean difference 2.2 degrees ; limits of agreement -6.2 to 10.6 degrees, respectively). The ability to differentiate between subjects ranged from 0.62 for measurement of passive extension to 0.89 for measurements of active flexion (ICC values).


CONCLUSIONS
Interobserver agreement for flexion as well as extension was only fair. When two different observers assess the same patients in the acute phase after total knee arthroplasty using a long arm goniometer, differences in RoM of less than eight degrees cannot be distinguished from measurement error. Reliability was found to be acceptable for comparison on group level, but poor for individual comparisons over time.
Lenssen
Anton F
AF
University Hospital Maastricht, Department of Physical Therapy, Maastricht, The Netherlands. alen@pmzl.azm.nl
van Dam
Ellen M
EM
Crijns
Yvonne H F
YH
Verhey
Mark
M
Geesink
Ruud J T
RJ
van den Brandt
Piet A
PA
de Bie
Rob A
RA
D000368:Aged; D053587:Arthrometry, Articular / Q000592:standards; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Q000534:rehabilitation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007297:Inpatients; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015588:Observer Variation; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D011184:Postoperative Period; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D016683:Supine Position
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Mar;82(3):396-402
11245764
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2005 Jan-Feb;143(1):25-9
15754228
Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):193-205
12074258
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Apr;19(3):369-72
15067653
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2004 Jun 14;5:18
15196309
Phys Ther. 1983 Oct;63(10):1611-5
6622536
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
2868172
Phys Ther. 1987 Feb;67(2):192-5
3809242
Phys Ther. 1987 Dec;67(12):1867-72
3685114
Phys Ther. 1988 Nov;68(11):1676-8
3186793
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jul;86(7):1356-61
16003664
Physiother Res Int. 2006 Mar;11(1):35-47
16594314
Phys Ther. 1991 Feb;71(2):90-6; discussion 96-7
1989012
Phys Ther. 1991 Aug;71(8):589-622
1852798
J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Sep;48(9):1123-32
7636514
Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24 Suppl 1:S7-14
7558556
Physiother Res Int. 1997;2(3):150-66
9421820
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Fall;17(4):479-87
11758292