What is the minimum torque required to obtain passive elbow end range of motion?

BACKGROUND: Passive range of motion is a common clinical assessment. The point at which passive end range of motion is measured is typically described by the 'end-feel'of the joint. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the minimum amount of torque required to obtain passive elbow flexion and extension in children? METHODS: Twenty-five children (age, 7.5 ± 1.6 years-old), who had previously sustained unilateral distal humeral fractures, participated in this prospective study.Passive elbow flexion and extension was measured at least 8 weeks and up to one year out of cast. Motion capture cameras were used to track twenty-one reflective markers placed on subjects and two markers attached to the pad of a force transducer.Five trials of passive range of motion (flexion and extension) were performed on both arms. Elbow joint moments were calculated as products of the forces applied and lengths to the elbow centers. A one way ANOVA was used to determine differences in moments for flexion and extension for both involved and uninvolved limbs. Pairedsamples t-tests were used to determine differences between the involved and the uninvolved limbs for both maximum flexion and extension. RESULTS: There was no difference in the minimum mean joint moment (2.7 ± 1.1 Nm) at end range of motion. However, differences in passive range of motion was found between involved and uninvolved elbows (flexion p < .001; extension p = .001). SIGNIFICANCE: The results demonstrate therapists obtained end range of passive elbow flexion and extension applying the same amount of minimum torque. A small torque is sufficient to achieve end range of elbow motion for children. This torque can be used in guiding clinical practice for assessing passive range of elbow motion in pediatric population. Because of a paucity of data for any joint, future research developing force data for other joints should be conducted.

Contributions of Body-Composition Characteristics to Critical Power and Anaerobic Work Capacity.

Critical power (CP) and anaerobic work capacity (AWC) from the CP test represent distinct parameters related to metabolic characteristics of the whole body and active muscle tissue, respectively. PURPOSE: To examine the contribution of whole-body composition characteristics and local lean mass to further elucidate the differences in metabolic characteristics between CP and AWC as they relate to whole body and local factors. METHODS: Fifteen anaerobically trained men were assessed for whole-body (% body fat and mineral-free lean mass [LBM]) and local mineral-free thigh lean mass (TLM) composition characteristics. CP and AWC were determined from the 3-min all-out CP test. Statistical analyses included Pearson product-moment correlations and stepwise multiple-regression analyses (P ≤ .05). RESULTS: Only LBM contributed significantly to the prediction of CP (CP = 2.3 [LBM] + 56.7 [r2 = .346, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 31.4 W, P = .021]), and only TLM to AWC (AWC = 0.8 [TLM] + 3.7 [r2 = .479, SEE = 2.2 kJ, P = .004]). CONCLUSIONS: The aerobic component (CP) of the CP test was most closely related to LBM, and the anaerobic component (AWC) was more closely related to the TLM. These findings support the theory that CP and AWC are separate measures of whole-body metabolic capabilities and the energy stores in the activated local muscle groups, respectively. Thus, training programs to improve CP and AWC should be designed to include resistance-training exercises to increase whole-body LBM and local TLM.