| Abstract | Uvod: Procjena mišićne jakosti pomoću dinamometrije vrlo je važan parametar u kliničkoj praksi kako bi se postavile normativne vrijednosti kod zdrave populacije, ali i pratilo poboljšanje ili pogoršanje određenih stanja vezanih za patologiju struktura koljenog zgloba. U ovome istraživanju, pomoću standardnog ručnog i fiksnog dinamometra, mjerena je vršna sila četveroglavog natkoljeničnog mišića upravo kako bi se isti dinamometri mogli usporediti na temelju njihovih prednosti i nedostataka. Cilj istraživanja: Glavni cilj ovoga istraživanja je usporediti dva različita dinamometra ispitivanjem mišićne jakosti četveroglavog natkoljeničnog mišića pri 15° i 90° fleksije koljenog zgloba te provedbom upitnika među ispitanicima uvidjeti prednosti i nedostatke pojedinog dinamometra. Ispitanici i metode: U istraživanju je sudjelovalo 20 ispitanika od 18. do 23. godine, od toga 11 muškaraca i 9 žena, prosječne dobi 19,75 ± 1,25 godina; prosječne visine 174,62 ± 7,16 cm te prosječne tjelesne mase 69,7 ± 10,76 kg. Od uređaja koristila su se dva dinamometra; standardni ručni dinamometar, microFET®2, uređaj tvrtke Hoggan Scientific i drugi, fiksni dinamometar, EasyForce®, uređaj tvrtke Meloq AB. Uz dinamometre koristio se i upitnik otvorenog tipa. Dobiveni rezultati mjerenja mišićne jakosti obrađeni su u programu Statistica 14.0.0.15 proizvođača TIBCO Software Inc. Deskriptivnom statistikom dobili su se podaci aritmetičke sredine, standardne devijacije, a razina statističke značajnosti prikazana je kao P < 0,05. Rezultati upitnika prikazani su frekvencijama. Rezultati: Pri 15° i 90° fleksije koljenog zgloba u sjedećoj i ležećoj poziciji, fiksni dinamometar je registrirao veće vršne vrijednosti sila, a statistički značajna razlika pokazala se pri mjerenjima pri 15° fleksije u ležećoj poziciji te pri 90° fleksije u sjedećoj i ležećoj poziciji sa standardnim ručnim i fiksnim dinamometrom. Prema subjektivnoj procjeni ispitanika, položaj u kojem im je najlakše bilo djelovati protiv otpora je pri 90° fleksije s fiksnim dinamometrom u sjedećoj poziciji, a bol i nelagodu tijekom testiranja prijavilo je najviše ispitanika i to sa standardnim ručnim dinamometrom. Svi ispitanici su izjavili da je oprema standardnog ručnog dinamometra bolja u odnosu na fiksni dinamometar, dok je objektivnost išla u prilog fiksnog dinamometra. Zaključak: Oba dinamometra su zbog prednosti i nedostataka na istoj razini, međutim ako se objektivnost gleda kao jedna od najvažnijih varijabli, onda se prednost u svakome slučaju daje fiksnom dinamometru. |
| Abstract (english) | Introduction: Muscle strength assessment using dynamometry is a very important parameter in clinical practice to set normative values in a healthy population, but also to monitor the improvement or exacerbation of certain conditions related to the pathology of the knee joint structures. In this research, using the standard manual and fixed dynamometer, the peak force of the quadriceps muscle was measured so that same dynamometers could be compared based on their advantages and disadvantages. Objectives: The main goal of this research is to compare two different dynamometers by testing the muscle strength of the quadriceps muscle at 15° and 90° flexion of the knee joint and to see the advantages and disadvantages of each dynamometer by conducting a questionnaire among respondents. Subjects and methods: 20 respondents aged 18 to 23 participated in the study, of which 11 were men and 9 were women, with an average age of 19,75 ± 1,25 years; average height 174,62 ± 7,16 cm and average body weight 69,7 ± 10,76 kg. Of the devices, two dynamometers were used; the standard manual dynamometer, microFET®2, Hoggan Scientific's company device, and the second one, fixed dynamometer, EasyForce®, Meloq AB's company device. In addition to the dynamometers, an open-ended questionnaire was used. The obtained results of muscle strength measurements were processed in the Statistica 14.0.0.15 program, manufactured by TIBCO Software Inc. By using descriptive statistics, the arithmetic mean data was obtained, standard deviations, and the level of statistical significance was shown as P < 0,05. The results of the questionnaire are shown in frequencies. Results: The fixed dynamometer registered higher peak values of the forces, and the statistically significant difference was shown in measurements at 15° of flexion in the lying down position and at 90° of flexion in both sitting and lying down position with the standard manual and fixed dynamometer. According to the respondents' subjective assessment, the position in which was easiest for them to act against the resistance was at 90° of flexion with the fixed dynamometer in a sitting position; the pain during the testing was reported by most respondents with a standard manual dynamometer. All respondents stated that the equipment of the standard manual dynamometer was better compared to the fixed dynamometer's equipment, while the objectivity went in favor of the fixed dynamometer. Conclusion: Both dynamometers are on the same level due to their advantages and disadvantages, however if the objectivity is seen as one of the most important variables, then the advantage in any case is given to the fixed dynamometer. |
