Search

Context: The Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) is a commonly used clinical tool to evaluate postural control that is traditionally performed through visual assessment and subjective evaluation of balance errors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an automated computer-based scoring system using an instrumented pressure mat compared to the traditional human-based manual assessment. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate the performance of the automated versus human BESS scoring methodology in healthy individuals. Methods: Fifty-one healthy active participants performed BESS trials following standard BESS procedures on an instrumented pressure mat (MobileMat, Tekscan Inc). Trained evaluators manually scored balance errors from frontal and sagittal plane video recordings for comparison to errors scored using center of force measurements and an automated scoring software (SportsAT, version 2.0.2, Tekscan Inc). A linear mixed model was used to determine measurement discrepancies across the 2 methods. Bland–Altman analyses were conducted to determine limit of agreement for the automated and manual scoring methods. Results: Significant differences between the automated and manual errors scored were observed across all conditions (P <.05), excluding bilateral firm stance. The greatest discrepancy between scoring methods was during the tandem foam stance, while the smallest discrepancy was during the tandem firm stance. Conclusion: The 2 methods of BESS scoring are different with wide limits of agreement. The benefits and risks of each approach to error scoring should be considered when selecting the most appropriate metric for clinical use or research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are not well understood. Hypothesis: Patients undergoing revision ACLR would demonstrate worse patient-reported outcomes and worse limb symmetry compared with a cohort undergoing primary ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: 672 participants (373 with primary ACLR, 111 with revision ACLR, and 188 uninjured) completed functional testing at a single academic medical center. Descriptive information, operative variables, and patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner Activity Scale score) were assessed for each patient. Quadriceps and hamstring strength tests were conducted using a Biodex System 3 Dynamometer. Single-leg hop for distance, triple hop test, and the 6-m timed hop test were also assessed. Limb symmetry index (LSI) between the ACLR limb and contralateral limb was calculated for strength and hop testing. Normalized peak torque (N·m/kg) was calculated for strength testing. Results: No differences were found in group characteristics, excluding body mass (P <.001), or in patient-reported outcomes. There were no interactions between revision status, graft type, and sex. Knee extension LSI was inferior (P <.001) in participants who had undergone primary (73.0% ± 15.0%) and revision (77.2% ± 19.1%) ACLR compared with healthy, uninjured participants (98.8% ± 10.4%). Knee flexion LSI was inferior (P =.04) in the primary group (97.4% ± 18.4%) compared with the revision group (101.9% ± 18.5%). Difference in knee flexion LSI between the uninjured and primary groups, as well as between the uninjured and revision groups, did not reach statistical significance. Hop LSI outcomes were significantly different across all groups (P <.001). Between-group differences in extension in the involved limb (P <.001) were noted, as the uninjured group exhibited stronger knee extension (2.16 ± 0.46 N·m/kg) than the primary group (1.67 ± 0.47 N·m/kg) and the revision group (1.78 ± 0.48 N·m/kg). As well, differences in flexion in the involved limb (P =.01) were found, as the revision group exhibited stronger knee flexion (1.06 ± 0.25 N·m/kg) than the primary group (0.97 ± 0.29 N·m/kg) and the uninjured group (0.98 ± 0.24 N·m/kg). Conclusion: At 7 months postoperatively, patients who had undergone revision ACLR did not demonstrate inferior patient-reported outcomes, limb symmetry, strength, or functional performance compared with patients who had undergone primary ACLR. Patients who had undergone revision ACLR exhibited greater strength and LSI than their counterparts with primary ACLR, but these parameters were still inferior to those of uninjured controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]