At 20:31 14/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>As a US P.T. I don't know of anyone who uses Isokinetics currently. In
>the US time cuts and visit cuts have cut out the use of isokinetics
>since they are so time consuming and as you well state there are many
>other exercises to do than on the isokinetic "machine". But, the
>isokinetic machine is good for quantifying strength and allowing the
>patient to see there is progress, i.e. working on the "Big Muscle"
>between the ears.
>
>
Thanks for setting me straight on the clinical picture in the US. My
comments were based on what I have observed in many Ortho/Sports Medicine
texts/articles, as well as anecdotal evidence from friends who have worked
in the States. Would love to get over there some time and check things out
myself.
I agree that isokinetic devices can give you a magic number, but what
carryover does this have to functional situations in terms of joint
displacement, velocities and accelerations, not to mention muscle
activation patterns. Can the patient be confident they are making progress
towards their ultimate goal (maximising function, return to sport/work)
based on a % increas at 30 degrees per second over a contrived arc of
motion?? Do isokinetic results give accurate predictions of functional
outcome or would tests like 12 metre hop, timed hops etc be more valid ways
of assessing outcome post ACL recon??
I agree with Mel Siff regarding the prevalence of isokinetic measurement in
research. I suppose the challenge to the research community is to prove the
reliability and validity of more functional measurement methods so they can
be used as outcome measures in clinical trials, for example.
I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this thread??
regards
Matt McEwan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|