Lower extremity joint loading during Bounce rope skip in comparison to run and walk.

BACKGROUND: Bounce rope-skip holds immense scope as an aerobic exercise in space and time constrained urban setting with additional constraints placed by pandemic situations such as Covid 19, wherein adherence to commonly performed weight-bearing, aerobic activities like walking and running is a challenge. Limited knowledge informing biomechanical demands and misconceptions about knee joint loading, confines safe application of bounce rope-skip in health promotion. Thus, present study aimed to explore kinematics and lower-extremity joint loading during rope-skipping compared to walking and running. METHODS: Following ethical approval, 3D motion analysis of bounce rope-skip, walk and run was captured from 22 healthy female participants aged 18-25yr using 12-camera Vicon system and 2AMTI force plates. Three trials for bounce rope-skip were recorded with five skip-jumps on force-plates at a cadence of 105 skips/min. Mid-skip, mid-gait and mid-run data were averaged to compute kinetic and kinematic variables for hip, knee and ankle during loading/initial contact, take-off/push-off and flight/mid-swing phases of rope-skip, walk and run. RESULT: Average time of one rope-skip cycle was 1.2sec; mean foot contact time was 0.55sec and flight time was 0.65sec. In one bounce rope-skip cycle, hip motion ranged between 13.4o-35.3oflexion; knee between 13.6 o-67.9° flexion and ankle between 34.5odorsiflexion to-13.40plantarflexion. Vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) during rope-skip (landing-phase) was lower compared to run; however, it was higher than walk (p < 0.001). In coronal plane, peak hip and knee adductor moment during rope-skip were lower compared to run and higher than walk (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Bounce rope-skip generated low lower extremity joint loading compared to run; supporting its prescription as a hip and knee joint-protective aerobic weight-bearing exercise for health promotion in young adults.

Virtual assessments of knee and wrist joint range motion have comparable reliability with face-to-face assessments.

BACKGROUND: There has been increased usage of virtual telerehabilitation approach during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is crucial to establish reliability of conducting virtual assessments for musculoskeletal conditions. OBJECTIVES: This research determined the intra- and interrater reliability of measuring knee and wrist range of motion (ROM) assessed virtually and obtained face-to-face (F2F) using a goniometer (UG) for a student and an experienced examiner. METHOD: Knee and wrist joint ROM for 54 healthy participants was assessed virtually and F2F by a student examiner and an experienced physical therapist. Intra- (virtual vs. UG assessment) and inter-rater (virtual or UG assessment between examiners) reliabilities were examined for all ROM using Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC values were considered good (>0.75) or excellent (>0.90). Bland and Altman plots determined the limits of agreement (LOA) in assessing joint ROM. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Student examiner had good reliability in virtually estimating knee extension (ICC = 0.79), wrist flexion (ICC = 0.82) and wrist extension (ICC = 0.78), whereas the experienced examiner had excellent reliability in virtually estimating all knee and wrist ROM (ICC > 0.90). The LOA in assessing knee and wrist ROM for the student examiner were wider indicating higher disagreement between virtual and UG-obtained ROM in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual estimation of knee and wrist ROM is a reliable technique, however experience level impacts the precision of measurement. It is suggested that the same examiner conducts all the ROM assessments throughout the clinical course of a patient receiving virtual interventions for knee or wrist pathologies.