Effect of a neoprene sleeve on knee joint kinesthesis: influence of different testing procedures

Citation
Tb. Birmingham et al., Effect of a neoprene sleeve on knee joint kinesthesis: influence of different testing procedures, MED SCI SPT, 32(2), 2000, pp. 304-308
Citations number
26
Categorie Soggetti
Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
ISSN journal
01959131 → ACNP
Volume
32
Issue
2
Year of publication
2000
Pages
304 - 308
Database
ISI
SICI code
0195-9131(200002)32:2<304:EOANSO>2.0.ZU;2-3
Abstract
Purpose: Objectives of this study were to examine the perceived sense of kn ee joint position during selected test situations, and to evaluate the prop osed kinesthetic effect of a neoprene knee sleeve during these test situati ons. Methods: Fifty-nine young healthy subjects (39 females and 20 males) a ttempted to replicate target knee joint angles using active and passive kne e extension movements completed in sitting (nonaxially loaded) situations, and during active knee extension movements completed in supine while applyi ng a load of 15% body weight through the long axis of the tibia (axially lo aded). The criterion measure used was the absolute difference between targe t and reproduced angles, averaged over five attempts (Average absolute diff erence: AAD). Results: A three-way ANOVA (two Senders by three test situati ons by two sleeve conditions), with repeated measures on the last two facto rs, indicated a significant main effect for test situation and sleeve condi tion (P < 0.05), bur not for gender. There was also a significant test situ ation by sleeve condition interaction (P < 0.05). Post-hoc analysis indicat ed that the AAD score during the active nonaxially loaded test situation wi thout the sleeve was significantly greater than AAD scores for all other te sts (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Pre-existing differences in knee joint kinesth esis observed during different contexts of limb movement must be recognized before various interventions, including the effect of knee supports, can b e adequately interpreted. Because knee joint position sense was attenuated during voluntary active movement, and because this attenuation was ameliora ted by the use of a sleeve, future studies evaluating the kinesthetic effec ts of knee bracing may benefit from using active movements. However, since the sleeve did not affect performance during the axially loaded test situat ion, future studies should also evaluate the relationship between tests of knee joint kinesthesis and other more functional tests of neuromuscular per formance.