Next Article in Journal
Proposal of Takagi–Sugeno Fuzzy-PI Controller Hardware
Previous Article in Journal
Ski Jumping Trajectory Reconstruction Using Wearable Sensors via Extended Rauch-Tung-Striebel Smoother with State Constraints
 
 
Article

Reliability of Vibroarthrography to Assess Knee Joint Sounds in Motion

1
Department of Sports Medicine and Exercise Physiology; Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60487 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, 35390 Giessen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(7), 1998; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071998
Received: 25 February 2020 / Revised: 27 March 2020 / Accepted: 31 March 2020 / Published: 2 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Sensors)
Knee acoustic emissions provide information about joint health and loading in motion. As the reproducibility of knee acoustic emissions by vibroarthrography is yet unknown, we evaluated the intrasession and interday reliability of knee joint sounds. In 19 volunteers (25.6 ± 2.0 years, 11 female), knee joint sounds were recorded by two acoustic sensors (16,000 Hz; medial tibial plateau, patella). All participants performed four sets standing up/sitting down (five repetitions each). For measuring intrasession reliability, we used a washout phase of 30 min between the first three sets, and for interday reliability we used a washout phase of one week between sets 3 and 4. The mean amplitude (dB) and median power frequency (Hz, MPF) were analyzed for each set. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs (2,1)), standard errors of measurement (SEMs), and coefficients of variability (CVs) were calculated. The intrasession ICCs ranged from 0.85 to 0.95 (tibia) and from 0.73 to 0.87 (patella). The corresponding SEMs for the amplitude were ≤1.44 dB (tibia) and ≤2.38 dB (patella); for the MPF, SEMs were ≤13.78 Hz (tibia) and ≤14.47 Hz (patella). The intrasession CVs were ≤0.06 (tibia) and ≤0.07 (patella) (p < 0.05). The interday ICCs ranged from 0.24 to 0.33 (tibia) and from 0 to 0.82 (patella) for both the MPF and amplitude. The interday SEMs were ≤4.39 dB (tibia) and ≤6.85 dB (patella) for the amplitude and ≤35.39 Hz (tibia) and ≤15.64 Hz (patella) for the MPF. The CVs were ≤0.14 (tibia) and ≤0.08 (patella). Knee joint sounds were highly repeatable within a single session but yielded inconsistent results for the interday reliability. View Full-Text
Keywords: acoustic emission; measurement properties; vibroarthrographic; knee sound; knee noise; crepitation; crepitus acoustic emission; measurement properties; vibroarthrographic; knee sound; knee noise; crepitation; crepitus
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Kalo, K.; Niederer, D.; Sus, R.; Sohrabi, K.; Groß, V.; Vogt, L. Reliability of Vibroarthrography to Assess Knee Joint Sounds in Motion. Sensors 2020, 20, 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071998

AMA Style

Kalo K, Niederer D, Sus R, Sohrabi K, Groß V, Vogt L. Reliability of Vibroarthrography to Assess Knee Joint Sounds in Motion. Sensors. 2020; 20(7):1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071998

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kalo, Kristin, Daniel Niederer, Rainer Sus, Keywan Sohrabi, Volker Groß, and Lutz Vogt. 2020. "Reliability of Vibroarthrography to Assess Knee Joint Sounds in Motion" Sensors 20, no. 7: 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071998

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop