000145118 001__ 145118
000145118 005__ 20240926122722.0
000145118 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106347
000145118 0248_ $$2sideral$$a139923
000145118 037__ $$aART-2024-139923
000145118 041__ $$aeng
000145118 100__ $$aLópez-de-Celis, Carlos
000145118 245__ $$aIs the cadaveric model valid for examining orthopaedic manual therapy techniques? A cross-sectional comparative study in vivo and in vitro
000145118 260__ $$c2024
000145118 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000145118 5203_ $$aCadaveric models are sometimes used to test the effect of manual techniques. We have not found any studies comparing the effect of tibiotarsal joint distraction on cadaveric models versus live models for clinical use. The aim was to compare the effect on tibiotarsal joint distraction movement when applying three force magnitudes of tibiotarsal axial traction technique force between a cadaveric model and volunteers. In addition, to compare the magnitude of force applied between the cadaveric model and volunteers. Finally, to assess the reliability of applying the same magnitude of force in three magnitudes of tibiotarsal axial traction force.
Methods
A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted. Sixty ankle joints were in open-packed position and three magnitudes of tibiotarsal axial traction technique force were applied. Tibiotarsal joint distraction movement was measured with ultrasound.
Findings
No differences were found in applied force or tibiotarsal joint distraction between volunteers and cadavers in each magnitude of force (p > 0.05). The application of the technique showed moderate reliability for detecting low forces in both models. For medium and high force, it showed good reliability in the in vitro model and excellent reliability in the live model.
Interpretation
The amount of distraction produced in the tibiotarsal joint was similar in volunteers and cadavers. The cadaveric model is a valid model for testing and investigating orthopaedic manual therapy techniques. The force applied was similar in the two models. Medium and high force detection showed good reliability, while low force showed moderate.
000145118 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby-nc-nd$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/
000145118 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000145118 700__ $$aRodríguez-Sanz, Jacobo
000145118 700__ $$aGassó-Villarejo, Segi
000145118 700__ $$aBueno-Gracia, Elena
000145118 700__ $$aCanet-Vintró, Max
000145118 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-5161-7479$$aEstébanez-de-Miguel, Elena$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000145118 7102_ $$11006$$2413$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería$$cÁrea Fisioterapia
000145118 773__ $$g120 (2024), 106347 [5 pp.]$$pClin. biomech.$$tClinical Biomechanics$$x0268-0033
000145118 8564_ $$s2092922$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/145118/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000145118 8564_ $$s2418408$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/145118/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000145118 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:145118$$particulos$$pdriver
000145118 951__ $$a2024-09-26-10:59:50
000145118 980__ $$aARTICLE