[Purpose] The aims of the present study were to investigate the most suitable location for vibroarthrography measurements of the knee joint to distinguish a healthy knee from knee osteoarthritis using Wavelet transform analysis. [Subjects and Methods] Participants were 16 healthy females and 17 females with severe knee osteoarthritis. Vibroarthrography signals were measured on the medial and lateral epicondyles, mid-patella, and tibia using stethoscopes with a microphone while subjects stood up from a seated position. Frequency and knee flexion angles at the peak wavelet coefficient were obtained. [Results] Peak wavelet coefficients at the lateral condyle and tibia were significantly higher in patients with knee osteoarthritis than in the control group. Knee joint angles at the peak wavelet coefficient were smaller (more extension) in the osteoarthritis group compared to the control group. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on tibia assessment with the frequency and knee flexion angles was higher than at the other measurement locations (both area under the curve: 0.86). [Conclusion] The tibia is the most suitable location for classifying knee osteoarthritis based on vibroarthrography signals.

Purpose: Gait metric alterations have been reported in patients suffering from chronic ankle instability (CAI). Those studies comprised relatively small cohorts and their findings were inconsistent. This study was undertaken to examine spatiotemporal gait parameters in patients with CAI and examine the relationship between self-reported disease severity and the magnitude of gait abnormalities. Methods: Medical files of all patients diagnosed as having CAI and referred to a private treatment center between May 2009 and February 2012 were retrieved from the center's database and evaluated. Inclusion criteria were the reporting of recurrent ankle sprains, instability, and a tendency of the ankle to "give way" during sports activities for the past !6 months. Age and gender-matched healthy people served as controls. All participants underwent a spatiotemporal gait analysis on a computerized mat and completed the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey. Results: Of the 95 eligible patients, 44 fulfilled study entry criteria and were compared to 53 controls. The CAI patients' walking velocity was w16% slower, their cadence was w9% lower, and their step length was w7% shorter than the controls. Their base of support during walking was w43% wider and their single limb support was w12% shorter than the controls. Their SF-36 Pain and Physical Function subscales were significantly lower compared to controls (P < 0.05). Conclusions: These results form a gait profile for patients with CAI. Significant differences with controls were found in most tested spatiotemporal gait parameters, most importantly in the base of support. These gait alterations may reflect strategies for coping with imbalance and pain. Measurements of gait parameters in combination with selfevaluation questionnaires are highly useful for assessing disease severity and for follow-up of individuals diagnosed as having CAI.