Omuz Ekleminde İki Farklı Propriyosepsiyon Ölçüm Yönteminin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2024, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 36 - 41, 30.05.2024

Talha Kılıç , Tuğba Kuru Çolak , Ali Tekin , Bahar Özgül , Aycan Cakmak

Abstract

Amaç: Omuz rehabilitasyonunda propriyosepsiyon değerlendirmesi önem taşımaktadır. Propriyosepsiyon duyusu klinik ortamda farklı yöntemlerle değerlendirilebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı universal gonyometre ve izokinetik sistem ile yapılan omuz propriosepsiyon ölçümlerini karşılaştırmaktı.
Yöntemler: Çalışmaya yaş ortalaması 24,6 yıl olan toplam 52 sağlıklı birey dahil edildi. Omuz propriosepsiyonu, oturur pozisyonda gözler kapalı iken 30, 45 ve 60 derece omuz fleksiyon açılarında universal gonyometre ve izokinetik cihaz ile üç kez değerlendirildi ve ortalama değerler kaydedildi.
Bulgular: İki ölçüm yöntemi ile elde edilen sonuçlar karşılaştırıldığında, ortalama değerler arasında anlamlı fark olduğu ve iki ölçüm yönteminin sonuçları arasında korelasyon ilişkisi olmadığı tespit edildi (p<0,05). Ancak hedef açıdan ortalama sapma her iki ölçüm yöntemi ile karşılaştırıldığında ölçüm yöntemleri arasında anlamlı bir fark olmadığı tespit edilmiştir (p<0,005).
Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları, omuz propriyosepsiyonu gonyometre veya izokinetik dinamometre kullanılarak çeşitli açılarda ölçüldüğünde farklı değerler elde edilebileceğini göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, hedef açıya kıyasla farklılıklar iki ölçüm yöntemi için benzer olduğundan, her iki değerlendirme yöntemi de propriyosepsiyon değerlendirmesi için kullanılabilir.

Keywords

değerlendirme, omuz, propriosepsiyon, rehabilitasyon

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Comparison of Two Different Proprioception Measurement Methods in the Shoulder Joint

Abstract

Aim: Proprioception assessment is important in shoulder rehabilitation. Proprioception sense can be evaluated with different methods in the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare shoulder proprioception measurements made with universal goniometer and isokinetic system.
Methods: A total of 52 healthy individuals with a mean age of 24.6 years were included in the study. Shoulder proprioception was evaluated three times with a universal goniometer and isokinetic device at 30, 45 and 60 degrees shoulder flexion angles with eyes closed in a sitting position and mean values were recorded.
Results: When the results obtained with the two measurement methods were compared, it was determined that there was a significant difference between the mean values and there was no correlation relationship between the results of the two measurement methods (p<0.05). However, when the mean deviation from the target angle was compared with both measurement methods, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the measurement methods (p<0.005).
Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrated that when shoulder proprioception was measured using a goniometer or an isokinetic dynamometer at various angles, different values could be obtained. However, since the differences compared to the target angle are similar for the two measurement methods, both assessment methods can be used for proprioception evaluation.

Keywords

assessment, shoulder, proprioception, rehabilitation

References

• 1. McCloskey DI. Kinesthetic sensibility. Physiol Rev. 1978;58(4):763-820. doi:10.1152/physrev.1978.58.4.763.
• 2. Sherrington C. The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1906.
• 3. Hillier S, Immink M, Thewlis D. Assessing Proprioception: A Systematic Review of Possibilities. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(10):933-949. doi:10.1177/1545968315573055.
• 4. Clark NC, Röijezon U, Treleaven J. Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 2: Clinical assessment and intervention. Man Ther. 2015;20(3):378-387. doi:10.1016/j.math.2015.01.009.
• 5. Lephart SM, Fu FH. Proprioception and Neuromuscular Control in Joint Stability. 1st ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2000.
• 6. Proske U, Gandevia SC. The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol Rev. 2012;92(4):1651-1697. doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2011.
• 7. Proske U. What is the role of muscle receptors in proprioception?. Muscle Nerve. 2005;31(6):780-787. doi:10.1002/mus.20330.
• 8. 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(2):90-97. doi:10.1093/ptj/71.2.90.
• 9. Fathima A, Meenakshi R. Single-arm tool for assessment of anomalous head posture. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70(10):3745. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1212_22.
• 10. Drouin JM, Valovich-mcLeod TC, Shultz SJ, Gansneder BM, Perrin DH. Reliability and validity of the Biodex system 3 pro isokinetic dynamometer velocity, torque and position measurements. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91(1):22-29. doi:10.1007/s00421-003-0933-0.
• 11. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P. Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002;93(4):1318-1326. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00283.2002.
• 12. Rockwood CA, Matsen FA. The shoulder. 6th ed. Philadelphia: WB Sounders; 2008.
• 13. Warner JJ, Deng XH, Warren RF, Torzilli PA. Static capsuloligamentous restraints to superior-inferior translation of the glenohumeral joint. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(6):675-685. doi:10.1177/036354659202000608.
• 14. Warner JJ, Lephart S, Fu FH. Role of proprioception in pathoetiology of shoulder instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(330):35-39. doi:10.1097/00003086-199609000-00005.
• 15. Lephart SM, Warner JJ, Borsa PA, Fu FH. Proprioception of the shoulder joint in healthy, unstable, and surgically repaired shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3(6):371-380. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80022-0.
• 16. Sahin E, Dilek B, Baydar M, Gundogdu M, Ergin B, Manisali M, et al. Shoulder proprioception in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(4):857-62. doi: 10.3233/BMR-160550.
• 17. Ager AL, Roy JS, Roos M, Belley AF, Cools A, Hébert LJ. Shoulder proprioception: How is it measured and is it reliable? A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2017;30(2):221-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.05.003.
• 18. Vafadar AK, Côté JN, Archambault PS. Interrater and Intrarater Reliability and Validity of 3 Measurement Methods for Shoulder-Position Sense. J Sport Rehabil. 2016;25(1):2014-0309. Published 2016. doi:10.1123/jsr.2014-0309.
• 19. Arslan S, Yapalı G. The Inter-Rater And Intra-Rater Reliability Of Glenohumeral Joint Position And Movement Sense Tests Applied Using An Isokinetic Dynamometer. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2022;33(3):210-8.
• 20. Batista LH, Camargo PR, Aiello GV, Oishi J, Salvini TF. Knee joint range-of-motion evaluation: correlation between measurements achieved using a universal goniometer and an isokinetic dynamometer. Braz J Phys Ther. 2006;10(2):193-8.