抄録
Purpose
We compared several isometric strengths in order to clarify the reliability of Microfet. Materials and Methods
(Study1) Ten normal subjects
participated in this study. We measured the shoulder isometric strength of,
1) flexion at 90 degrees of flexion,
2) external rotation at 90 degrees abduction, with examinee placed supine, and,
3) abduction at 45 degrees abduction,
4) abduction at 30 degrees abduction and maximally internal rotation, with placed sitting.
(Study2) Six normal subjects
participated in this study. We measured shoulder isometric strength of,
1) flexion at 90 degrees flexion,
2) external rotation at 90 degrees abduction, with placed supine, and
3) flexion at 90 degrees flexion,
4) external rotation at the arm at sibe, with placed sitting. In study 1, we applied the fixation with strapping to all measurements.
In study 2, we applied the fixation to measurements used Cybex, whereas no fixation to Microfet.
Results
1) There ws a high relationship between the two measurements.
2) strength measured by Microfet was significantly greater than that measured by Cybex.
3) Coefficient of variation was no significant difference between the two devices except flexion measured by Microfet with placed supine.
Conclusion
We concluded that Microfet was a clinically useful device to evaluate shoulder isometric strength.
